TENNIS: Wimbledon rounds 3 and 4
Jul. 16th, 2022 06:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feather_ghyllThird round (Saturday):
I switched the TV on as close as I could manage to 11 o’clock, but the Boulter v Tan match had already started and the Brit was 2-0 down. I could soon see why, Tan (the French number 7, who had followed up her victory over Serena Williams by a two-set win against a seed) was utilising spins, playing with great placement, no pace and flummoxing Boulter, who just didn’t know what to do even to win a point. It was remarkable. The crowd was silenced, Tan was acing rather than Boulter and the match was over in under an hour. 6-1, 6-1. Tan has found her surface! I don’t think anyone will want to face her, although there will be other players with great variety and top class players ought to have the intensity to find a way.
I was less invested in Kraijikov against Tomlianovic, which turned into a three setter, with Tomlinaovic playing her way into a win.
Centre court had two bright young American talents, Coco Gauff against Amanda Anisimova, who’s only a couple of years older, but not as highly ranked or well known at Wimbledon. Gauff started off better, more used to Centre Court, but Anisimova settled and the momentum shifted, but I have to admit that I started dozing as the first set was evenly matched and they went into a tiebreak. Gauff won that, apparently, I discovered when I came to, but Anisimova had impressively realised that it was close and stayed positive at the start of the second set and played better. She’d obviously been watching the French Open final because she went for Gauff’s weaker shot while hitting all the lines, glued to the baseline. Up the second set and then winning the third and very pleased with getting through to the fourth round, as she should be.
But then Wimbledon productions put on a double bill as Court No. 1 turned into a theatre. Iga Swiatek, the dominant world number 1 with her 37 match-winning streak was going to have to perform in ‘Alize Cornet, the Giant Slayer’, a supporting role previously filled by Serena Williams. The lead is 32, and apparently only the Williams sisters and Kusnetsova have appeared in more Grand Slam matches (on the women’s side?) The Frenchwoman settled on the stage more quickly than Swiatek, who was down 3-0, two breaks down and her forehand was still not what it should be because she hadn’t found her timing with it on the grass, but she dug in and broke Cornet and kept it to one break. Still, although Swiatek was now playing better, Cornet had all the answers, maintained that break and won the set.
Swiatek battled to hold serve in a long game and then broke Cornet at the start of the second act, sorry, set, and we thought we knew how the script was developing as she led 40-15. As Tracey Austin pointed out, this was the key game, because Swiatek then proceeded to lose that game and it was back on serve, and Cornet never dipped from that point on. She is a drama queen, from how she insisted the ball kids fed her the balls to showing her feelings at every point, but she was focused and it was her show, as she played some inspired shots, a few of which were even better than she’d intended for them to be. Swiatek collapsed during the end of the second set, her inexperience on the grass contrasting with the wily old campaigner’s nous.
I thought it was telling that Cornet said in the post-match interview she’d always believed that she could win this match.
On the one hand, it is a big shock. Swiatek had to be mentioned as a favourite to win. Was she THE favourite to win in the way she was at the French, though? No. The double is a tricky, tricky one, as dealing with the comedown from success at Paris cuts your time on grass – Nadal has and others have rarely managed it, and Swiatek didn’t quite have the pedigree or game yet (she is only 21). It means Badosa (who beat Kvitova in a tight hard-hitting match I didn’t watch) is the top seed standing in this half, and look, after Raducanu’s run and the past few years, everyone still believes.
But as I said, court no. 1 had a double bill, and while the theatrics of the ladies’ match was mainly tennis with a sprinkling of Cornet’s personality, the next match was something else. The main channel plumped for Nadal on Centre Court, but I expected him to win and pressed the red button for the tantalising prospect of an in-form Kyrgios against Tsitsipas. I don’t think I quite expected the full Greek drama that ensued – and it needed to be seen and hear to be believed. The first account Sue Barker gave of it when the roof was closed wasn’t the whole story, although the post-match discussion in the studio was more comprehensive. Admittedly, I didn’t see the whole thing, I started watching at 5-5 in the first set, but I don’t think the drama had really started then, but it definitely did before they switched over to BBC One.
During the 5-5 game, there was an incident with a wrong call, corrected, that went against Kyrgios, but was an honest mistake. He exploded and could be heard using an obscenity to the umpire at the change of ends. Andrew Cotter tried to apologise and listen to what we shall call The Chuntering, but there was no warning when there should have been one, as Pat Cash, who is clearly over Kyrgios, observed. There was then, the commentators said, an incident where a linesperson, possibly the one who’d made the faulty call and corrected it, reported Kyrgios to the umpire for another obscenity. This is hearsay, it wasn’t picked up by the TV sound, but again, nothing from the umpire.
The first set went to a tiebreak, which Tsitsipas played better. So, he was a set up, and Kyrgios was serving amazingly in between chuntering, but really fast. The commentators, particularly former players Cash and John Lloyd, were on Tsitsipas’s side as he tried to slow things down by going for the towel, making the point that yes, the match should be played at the server’s speed, but Kyrgios wasn’t even waiting for the ballkids to return to their positions, so there was distracting movement on court when he started to serve. Kyrgios got reported for swearing by another linesman and finally got a warning for an audible obscenity, but as Cash et al pointed out, this was the third time and he should have been penalised more heavily (in later studio chat, Anne Keothavong and Martina Navratilova would clarify that audibly swearing at someone else is what you get warned/defaulted for. Although, as there are kids watching and players are well-paid role models, they oughtn’t to be doing it anyway.) I tend to agree that it would have been better if there had been a zero-tolerance attitude from the start for the obscenities and the general bad behaviour bordering on gamesmanship.
The crowd were siding with Kyrgios, who broke Tsitsipas (who I’d been supporting by default as the representative of Application and Professionalism versus the squandering of talent we’ve seen from Kyrgios for years and years.) A frustrated Tsitsipas hit a ball out into the crowd, not quite fast enough to hurt anyone – the chap closest to it swerved. Kyrgios protested, and on the one hand he had a point about crowd safety, on the other, he’d been given so much rope. Tsitipas got a warning for his conduct. But Kyrgios was chuntering really loudly to the umpire about all this and pretty much intimidating him, a supervisor was called on, backed the umpire up (I think I’m remembering this right) and the tournament referee was hovering for a while, although he should have been around from the start, given that it’s Kyrgios, I thought.
I believe it was at this point that Tsitsipas got sniffy about ‘the gentleman’ putting his towel in the wrong basket. But Kyrgios was also holding his serves much more easily and won the third set, and at some point a frustrated Tsitipas, reacting to the accusations/loss/winding-up hit another ball out into the crowd, again, not harming anyone but venting his frustration in a dodgy way and got a point deducted for it. He hadn’t heard the warning and was surprised, but it galvanised his play in that game.
Most of the crowd were for Kyrgios, apart from a loyal few supporting Tsitsipas. I think Kyrgios put some in the crowd off in the fourth when he started ranting at his box for not giving him enough positive support when he was two sets to one up and it was on serve and he was holding serve more easily than Tsitsipas.
Granted, Tsitsipas was consistently raising his game when facing break points to deny Kyrgios, which must have been frustrating.
Well, the Greek seed was finally getting more chances on Kyrgios’s service games, but the Greek-Aussie could then rattle off brilliant serves to help him win games that he’d started off behind on. At 4-4 in the fourth, they decided to close the roof (to John Lloyd’s disgust) and we got that slightly inaccurate recap of ‘the drama’ from the studio, in which they showed Tsitsipas hitting balls straight at Kyrgios, which is a legal move, if not entirely sportsmanlike, and a tactic I was thinking he should employ as a better way of channelling his frustration than hitting out into the crowd, as long as he was aiming below the head. The crowd hadn’t liked it, though.
We returned to the tennis and it could have gone either way, because we ended up with a tie break and it was set point Tsitsipas one moment, match point Kyrgios the next, and it was the latter who played the better at those points and won.
There was lots of talk about The Drama. Navratilova made the point that male players were treated with more leniency over bad behaviour than women, citing Serena’s infamous defaulting at the US Open final (although Martina, you got dragged into talking about all this drama and the unusual, if lesser, drama in the Nadal match, and not the women’s top seed being beaten, ending her amazing run of wins which is the bigger tennis story!)
And I’ve mainly talked about The Drama here, so I should mind the glass. On the tennis front, Tsitsipas’s serve was nowhere near where it needed to be, while Kyrgios’s was brilliant, and Tsitsipas’s backhand was unreliable, even his forehand was unreliable, some of his approach shots and volleys weren’t great, so he wasn’t able to capitalise on half-chances to break, even though there were signs that Kyrgios would have got bored with grafting to win points or games, or chosen a showboating shot when another one would have lengthened the point or even won it, and that’s what differentiates Tsitsipas from the Grand Slam champions and why I was sniffy about including him among the favourites for this Wimbledon. I mean, if Brandon Nakashima found a way to win against Nick Kyrgios in the next round, I wouldn’t mind, because it feels wrong that Kyrgios is rewarded with any accolades for his bad behaviour (and Tsitsipas needs to get his temper under control) but, although it feels like it’s going to be Djokovic against Nadal AGAIN, as it’s otherwise a weak field so it’s open for a surprising young man to go deep, but I’ll be disgusted if it’s Kyrgios.
Fourth round (Sunday):
I arrived home, and thanks to the watch from start option, joined the Norrie match at the start of the third set, delighted to discover he was two sets up, and although Paul showed flashes of good play, Cam Norrie was exerting pressure, very much looking like the higher seed, he broke and served it out reasonably confidently. His serve stats were impressive.
He faces Goffin, who he should, on paperm beat in his first grand slam quarter final.
The three English commentators did discuss The Drama of last night, remarking that Tsitsipas had something of a reputation for gamesmanship/being coached on court by his father, but John Lloyd, who had called the previous night, did say that he was goaded into the behaviour that was condemned by Kyrgios.
Anyway, attention switched to the third set of the Alcaraz v Sinner match, and the young (what is his age, though?) Italian was up two sets, but Alcaraz was fighting. It semed as though Sinner had been playing really well, but hadn’t converted chances at the start of the third, which went to a tiebreak that Alcaraz knew he must win. A mini break here, lost, and then it was match point vs set point, and Alcaraz was the more unyielding. Lleyton Hewitt pointed out that Sinner had made a couple of dodgy decisions – running around a backhand, trying a drop shot that might haunt him.
The commentating team was droll Andrew Cotter, Hewitt who didn’t say much, but what he did was insightful, and Feliciano Lopez, who wasn’t as insightful and I think breathed rather loudly but has such a sexy Spanish voice that I forgave him for that, although he did seem to commentate on the point before the one that had just happened.
So, how would Sinner respond to losing the tiebreak? Could Alcaraz continue the fightback? Well, Sinner was clearly dropping a level, struggling with his disappointment and a little doubtful. Alcaraz genrated break point after break point, but could not take them, and a few were on his racquet. He seemed to be winning his service games more easily, but it was Sinner who broke first, and Alcaraz – despite some wonderful rallies that justified Sue Barker’s murmurings that maybe this was the future of men’s tennis – it was the Italian who won. He has more experience and better slam results than the teenager, but no doubt Alcaraz is the real deal, who has already learned a lot about grass and earned Wimbledon crowd support.
Apparently Heather Watson lost. But later than usual!
I then joined the live tennis, and the unexpected Dutchman had just got a set off Djokovic, so it was one set all, but Djokovic clearly raised his level. It was frustrating to learn that his opponent really ought to have challenged two calls that went against him in the first game, because they were wrong, but perhaps inexperience or unfamiliarity with Hawkeye told, and most other players don’t use it impeccably either. Furthermore, Djokovic was reminding his opponent that he was Novak Djokovic, six times champion here, used to being world number 1. Well, at least his opponent didn’t get bagelled. I stopped watching after the third set, presuming Djokovic won. McEnroe seemed to be relentlessly advocating for Djokovic. (Although, realistically, I don’t think the US Government are going to change their stance on vaccination requirements just for him, and it simply isn’t going to be such a big deal as it was Down Under.)
On Monday morning, I learned that Sinner is 20 (he’s been around for long enough that I thought he was a little older) and that both Tsitsipas and Kyrgios had been fined, the former more than the latter, for their misdemeanours on the Saturday night.
Monday:
On Monday lunchtime, when I switched the tennis on, De Minaur had just won the second set of his fourth-round match, and Ostapenko and her partner had just won the second set against Watson and Dart, so I actually watched something else.
During my afternoon coffee break, I joined the centre court stream which I’d stick to all day, although I only really started watching the Kyrgios v. Nakashima match at one set all, when the commentating Tim Henman was being unsympathetic about Kyrgios’s sore shoulder. As the default representative of Applied Professionalism, I was supporting Nakashima, and urging him, as an American, to celebrate the fourth of July by winning, despite having never heard of him before. It turned out he’s only 20. He’d taken advantage of the shoulder to win the first set, and was facing a quieter Kyrgios and crowd than Saturday night’s. Kyrgios had more in the second set tiebreak, and the third. You could see why Nakashima had gone on a run through to the fourth round, but he didn’t have the flashes of brilliance Kyrgios displayed, and yet, in the fourth set, I fast forwarded a bit to find that Nakashima had broken once, and then watched that silly game at the end of the fourth where Kyrgios gave away his last service game, to give Nakashima the advantage of serving first in the fifth. I saw a later interview where he was somewhat cockily saying he was thinking of his five set record at Wimbledon, and sure he’d outplay Nakashima in the fifth.
His next opponent will be Garin, who faced down two match points and beat De Minaur in five sets. (De Minaur really ought to be cross with himself for losing that), he’ll also be tired, but knowing little about the Chilean, I’ll be supporting him.
I watched the whole of the next match, though – it was hard not to as it was just an hour long. Badosa, the top woman’s seed left in this half now, faced Halep. Now, I’ve thought Halep could be a potential champion again, because she knows how to win, and she’d been getting through the draw quietly as others have been granted all the limelight, but with all the other former champions gone, the French Open finalists gone and the British women too, she returned to Centre Court (remember, like everyone, she couldn’t play in 2020, and was injured last year, but the last time she played on CC she was blistering) the slight favourite, having beaten Badosa on clay this year, not dropped a set all tournament – and I remembered being informed on Saturday that the three players who’d won more matches than Anisimova this year were Switatek, Jabeur and…Halep, despite her lower ranking.
Badosa served first and won easily enough. Halep served next and won easily enough. And then she played another return game and she was stunning, meeting Badosa’s pace, redirecting the ball, running to return what might have been winners against other players, winning point after point, breaking before the crowd had fully returned, breaking again and again to win 6-1 as if she were world number 1 again playing some nobody. Which Badosa is not, but she kept missing or watching a winner pass her. The second set was slightly better for the Spanish player, her best tactic was down the middle and deep because Halep couldn’t find the angles, but then Halep broke her again and, despite facing a leeetle more pressure on her serve, finished the demolition job, and put down a marker for the rest of the female players.
I wasn’t that interested in the stories that had started on Saturday: Anisimova will face Halep next, having beaten Tan, but I don’t know whether Halep is such a bete noire for her as the Romanian is for Badosa now, but I don’t think she’s got enough to trouble Halep if she’s focused like this. Cornet is out too. As I said, Halep is the last Champion standing, and Jabeur’s the only top seed left with pedigree, and most of the names that were talked about have dropped away, which is not that surprising on the women’s side,
I next watched the whole Nadal vs van der Vanderschlup match, which felt like it would be a test of where both were at. Nadal really pushed on the Dutchman’s first service game but he held, and had an easier job holding for most of the first set, until the final time, where Nadal broke, having seemingly figured out what he needed to do. Nadal got another break in the second set, and his opponent seemed dejected. I think it was mainly playing Nadal and what was coming back at him from the other side of the net, but this was also his first time on Centre (a quite subdued Centre all day) and the commentators saw a little weariness in his play in the third set. Nadal broke early, but then lost focus and was broken back to everyone else’s mild shock. Furious, he broke back immediately and maintained his intensity, while Vanderschlup was good enough to keep his serve and string together a few good points, but overall not enough of them, and Nadal was serving for the match. He double faulted. ‘Er, what?’ was my response, then came three unforced errors (there was just one good first serve in the game) and it was even and everyone, including Vanderschlup was surprised he was still on the court. Nadal is human after all, commentators commented (McEnroe was one of them and as appreciative of Nadal as of Djokovic.) Both players held serve for a tie break, which Nadal led, but failed to convert three match points. He took the next, though, but that was an unusual final wobble, and Lopez claimed it was lack of focus, Cash would later claim it was the light. Up until then he had by far been the sharper and the stronger player. He faces Taylor Fritz, the last American standing, who is through to a QF for the first time.
[Edited for typos 27/2/25.]
I switched the TV on as close as I could manage to 11 o’clock, but the Boulter v Tan match had already started and the Brit was 2-0 down. I could soon see why, Tan (the French number 7, who had followed up her victory over Serena Williams by a two-set win against a seed) was utilising spins, playing with great placement, no pace and flummoxing Boulter, who just didn’t know what to do even to win a point. It was remarkable. The crowd was silenced, Tan was acing rather than Boulter and the match was over in under an hour. 6-1, 6-1. Tan has found her surface! I don’t think anyone will want to face her, although there will be other players with great variety and top class players ought to have the intensity to find a way.
I was less invested in Kraijikov against Tomlianovic, which turned into a three setter, with Tomlinaovic playing her way into a win.
Centre court had two bright young American talents, Coco Gauff against Amanda Anisimova, who’s only a couple of years older, but not as highly ranked or well known at Wimbledon. Gauff started off better, more used to Centre Court, but Anisimova settled and the momentum shifted, but I have to admit that I started dozing as the first set was evenly matched and they went into a tiebreak. Gauff won that, apparently, I discovered when I came to, but Anisimova had impressively realised that it was close and stayed positive at the start of the second set and played better. She’d obviously been watching the French Open final because she went for Gauff’s weaker shot while hitting all the lines, glued to the baseline. Up the second set and then winning the third and very pleased with getting through to the fourth round, as she should be.
But then Wimbledon productions put on a double bill as Court No. 1 turned into a theatre. Iga Swiatek, the dominant world number 1 with her 37 match-winning streak was going to have to perform in ‘Alize Cornet, the Giant Slayer’, a supporting role previously filled by Serena Williams. The lead is 32, and apparently only the Williams sisters and Kusnetsova have appeared in more Grand Slam matches (on the women’s side?) The Frenchwoman settled on the stage more quickly than Swiatek, who was down 3-0, two breaks down and her forehand was still not what it should be because she hadn’t found her timing with it on the grass, but she dug in and broke Cornet and kept it to one break. Still, although Swiatek was now playing better, Cornet had all the answers, maintained that break and won the set.
Swiatek battled to hold serve in a long game and then broke Cornet at the start of the second act, sorry, set, and we thought we knew how the script was developing as she led 40-15. As Tracey Austin pointed out, this was the key game, because Swiatek then proceeded to lose that game and it was back on serve, and Cornet never dipped from that point on. She is a drama queen, from how she insisted the ball kids fed her the balls to showing her feelings at every point, but she was focused and it was her show, as she played some inspired shots, a few of which were even better than she’d intended for them to be. Swiatek collapsed during the end of the second set, her inexperience on the grass contrasting with the wily old campaigner’s nous.
I thought it was telling that Cornet said in the post-match interview she’d always believed that she could win this match.
On the one hand, it is a big shock. Swiatek had to be mentioned as a favourite to win. Was she THE favourite to win in the way she was at the French, though? No. The double is a tricky, tricky one, as dealing with the comedown from success at Paris cuts your time on grass – Nadal has and others have rarely managed it, and Swiatek didn’t quite have the pedigree or game yet (she is only 21). It means Badosa (who beat Kvitova in a tight hard-hitting match I didn’t watch) is the top seed standing in this half, and look, after Raducanu’s run and the past few years, everyone still believes.
But as I said, court no. 1 had a double bill, and while the theatrics of the ladies’ match was mainly tennis with a sprinkling of Cornet’s personality, the next match was something else. The main channel plumped for Nadal on Centre Court, but I expected him to win and pressed the red button for the tantalising prospect of an in-form Kyrgios against Tsitsipas. I don’t think I quite expected the full Greek drama that ensued – and it needed to be seen and hear to be believed. The first account Sue Barker gave of it when the roof was closed wasn’t the whole story, although the post-match discussion in the studio was more comprehensive. Admittedly, I didn’t see the whole thing, I started watching at 5-5 in the first set, but I don’t think the drama had really started then, but it definitely did before they switched over to BBC One.
During the 5-5 game, there was an incident with a wrong call, corrected, that went against Kyrgios, but was an honest mistake. He exploded and could be heard using an obscenity to the umpire at the change of ends. Andrew Cotter tried to apologise and listen to what we shall call The Chuntering, but there was no warning when there should have been one, as Pat Cash, who is clearly over Kyrgios, observed. There was then, the commentators said, an incident where a linesperson, possibly the one who’d made the faulty call and corrected it, reported Kyrgios to the umpire for another obscenity. This is hearsay, it wasn’t picked up by the TV sound, but again, nothing from the umpire.
The first set went to a tiebreak, which Tsitsipas played better. So, he was a set up, and Kyrgios was serving amazingly in between chuntering, but really fast. The commentators, particularly former players Cash and John Lloyd, were on Tsitsipas’s side as he tried to slow things down by going for the towel, making the point that yes, the match should be played at the server’s speed, but Kyrgios wasn’t even waiting for the ballkids to return to their positions, so there was distracting movement on court when he started to serve. Kyrgios got reported for swearing by another linesman and finally got a warning for an audible obscenity, but as Cash et al pointed out, this was the third time and he should have been penalised more heavily (in later studio chat, Anne Keothavong and Martina Navratilova would clarify that audibly swearing at someone else is what you get warned/defaulted for. Although, as there are kids watching and players are well-paid role models, they oughtn’t to be doing it anyway.) I tend to agree that it would have been better if there had been a zero-tolerance attitude from the start for the obscenities and the general bad behaviour bordering on gamesmanship.
The crowd were siding with Kyrgios, who broke Tsitsipas (who I’d been supporting by default as the representative of Application and Professionalism versus the squandering of talent we’ve seen from Kyrgios for years and years.) A frustrated Tsitsipas hit a ball out into the crowd, not quite fast enough to hurt anyone – the chap closest to it swerved. Kyrgios protested, and on the one hand he had a point about crowd safety, on the other, he’d been given so much rope. Tsitipas got a warning for his conduct. But Kyrgios was chuntering really loudly to the umpire about all this and pretty much intimidating him, a supervisor was called on, backed the umpire up (I think I’m remembering this right) and the tournament referee was hovering for a while, although he should have been around from the start, given that it’s Kyrgios, I thought.
I believe it was at this point that Tsitsipas got sniffy about ‘the gentleman’ putting his towel in the wrong basket. But Kyrgios was also holding his serves much more easily and won the third set, and at some point a frustrated Tsitipas, reacting to the accusations/loss/winding-up hit another ball out into the crowd, again, not harming anyone but venting his frustration in a dodgy way and got a point deducted for it. He hadn’t heard the warning and was surprised, but it galvanised his play in that game.
Most of the crowd were for Kyrgios, apart from a loyal few supporting Tsitsipas. I think Kyrgios put some in the crowd off in the fourth when he started ranting at his box for not giving him enough positive support when he was two sets to one up and it was on serve and he was holding serve more easily than Tsitsipas.
Granted, Tsitsipas was consistently raising his game when facing break points to deny Kyrgios, which must have been frustrating.
Well, the Greek seed was finally getting more chances on Kyrgios’s service games, but the Greek-Aussie could then rattle off brilliant serves to help him win games that he’d started off behind on. At 4-4 in the fourth, they decided to close the roof (to John Lloyd’s disgust) and we got that slightly inaccurate recap of ‘the drama’ from the studio, in which they showed Tsitsipas hitting balls straight at Kyrgios, which is a legal move, if not entirely sportsmanlike, and a tactic I was thinking he should employ as a better way of channelling his frustration than hitting out into the crowd, as long as he was aiming below the head. The crowd hadn’t liked it, though.
We returned to the tennis and it could have gone either way, because we ended up with a tie break and it was set point Tsitsipas one moment, match point Kyrgios the next, and it was the latter who played the better at those points and won.
There was lots of talk about The Drama. Navratilova made the point that male players were treated with more leniency over bad behaviour than women, citing Serena’s infamous defaulting at the US Open final (although Martina, you got dragged into talking about all this drama and the unusual, if lesser, drama in the Nadal match, and not the women’s top seed being beaten, ending her amazing run of wins which is the bigger tennis story!)
And I’ve mainly talked about The Drama here, so I should mind the glass. On the tennis front, Tsitsipas’s serve was nowhere near where it needed to be, while Kyrgios’s was brilliant, and Tsitsipas’s backhand was unreliable, even his forehand was unreliable, some of his approach shots and volleys weren’t great, so he wasn’t able to capitalise on half-chances to break, even though there were signs that Kyrgios would have got bored with grafting to win points or games, or chosen a showboating shot when another one would have lengthened the point or even won it, and that’s what differentiates Tsitsipas from the Grand Slam champions and why I was sniffy about including him among the favourites for this Wimbledon. I mean, if Brandon Nakashima found a way to win against Nick Kyrgios in the next round, I wouldn’t mind, because it feels wrong that Kyrgios is rewarded with any accolades for his bad behaviour (and Tsitsipas needs to get his temper under control) but, although it feels like it’s going to be Djokovic against Nadal AGAIN, as it’s otherwise a weak field so it’s open for a surprising young man to go deep, but I’ll be disgusted if it’s Kyrgios.
Fourth round (Sunday):
I arrived home, and thanks to the watch from start option, joined the Norrie match at the start of the third set, delighted to discover he was two sets up, and although Paul showed flashes of good play, Cam Norrie was exerting pressure, very much looking like the higher seed, he broke and served it out reasonably confidently. His serve stats were impressive.
He faces Goffin, who he should, on paperm beat in his first grand slam quarter final.
The three English commentators did discuss The Drama of last night, remarking that Tsitsipas had something of a reputation for gamesmanship/being coached on court by his father, but John Lloyd, who had called the previous night, did say that he was goaded into the behaviour that was condemned by Kyrgios.
Anyway, attention switched to the third set of the Alcaraz v Sinner match, and the young (what is his age, though?) Italian was up two sets, but Alcaraz was fighting. It semed as though Sinner had been playing really well, but hadn’t converted chances at the start of the third, which went to a tiebreak that Alcaraz knew he must win. A mini break here, lost, and then it was match point vs set point, and Alcaraz was the more unyielding. Lleyton Hewitt pointed out that Sinner had made a couple of dodgy decisions – running around a backhand, trying a drop shot that might haunt him.
The commentating team was droll Andrew Cotter, Hewitt who didn’t say much, but what he did was insightful, and Feliciano Lopez, who wasn’t as insightful and I think breathed rather loudly but has such a sexy Spanish voice that I forgave him for that, although he did seem to commentate on the point before the one that had just happened.
So, how would Sinner respond to losing the tiebreak? Could Alcaraz continue the fightback? Well, Sinner was clearly dropping a level, struggling with his disappointment and a little doubtful. Alcaraz genrated break point after break point, but could not take them, and a few were on his racquet. He seemed to be winning his service games more easily, but it was Sinner who broke first, and Alcaraz – despite some wonderful rallies that justified Sue Barker’s murmurings that maybe this was the future of men’s tennis – it was the Italian who won. He has more experience and better slam results than the teenager, but no doubt Alcaraz is the real deal, who has already learned a lot about grass and earned Wimbledon crowd support.
Apparently Heather Watson lost. But later than usual!
I then joined the live tennis, and the unexpected Dutchman had just got a set off Djokovic, so it was one set all, but Djokovic clearly raised his level. It was frustrating to learn that his opponent really ought to have challenged two calls that went against him in the first game, because they were wrong, but perhaps inexperience or unfamiliarity with Hawkeye told, and most other players don’t use it impeccably either. Furthermore, Djokovic was reminding his opponent that he was Novak Djokovic, six times champion here, used to being world number 1. Well, at least his opponent didn’t get bagelled. I stopped watching after the third set, presuming Djokovic won. McEnroe seemed to be relentlessly advocating for Djokovic. (Although, realistically, I don’t think the US Government are going to change their stance on vaccination requirements just for him, and it simply isn’t going to be such a big deal as it was Down Under.)
On Monday morning, I learned that Sinner is 20 (he’s been around for long enough that I thought he was a little older) and that both Tsitsipas and Kyrgios had been fined, the former more than the latter, for their misdemeanours on the Saturday night.
Monday:
On Monday lunchtime, when I switched the tennis on, De Minaur had just won the second set of his fourth-round match, and Ostapenko and her partner had just won the second set against Watson and Dart, so I actually watched something else.
During my afternoon coffee break, I joined the centre court stream which I’d stick to all day, although I only really started watching the Kyrgios v. Nakashima match at one set all, when the commentating Tim Henman was being unsympathetic about Kyrgios’s sore shoulder. As the default representative of Applied Professionalism, I was supporting Nakashima, and urging him, as an American, to celebrate the fourth of July by winning, despite having never heard of him before. It turned out he’s only 20. He’d taken advantage of the shoulder to win the first set, and was facing a quieter Kyrgios and crowd than Saturday night’s. Kyrgios had more in the second set tiebreak, and the third. You could see why Nakashima had gone on a run through to the fourth round, but he didn’t have the flashes of brilliance Kyrgios displayed, and yet, in the fourth set, I fast forwarded a bit to find that Nakashima had broken once, and then watched that silly game at the end of the fourth where Kyrgios gave away his last service game, to give Nakashima the advantage of serving first in the fifth. I saw a later interview where he was somewhat cockily saying he was thinking of his five set record at Wimbledon, and sure he’d outplay Nakashima in the fifth.
His next opponent will be Garin, who faced down two match points and beat De Minaur in five sets. (De Minaur really ought to be cross with himself for losing that), he’ll also be tired, but knowing little about the Chilean, I’ll be supporting him.
I watched the whole of the next match, though – it was hard not to as it was just an hour long. Badosa, the top woman’s seed left in this half now, faced Halep. Now, I’ve thought Halep could be a potential champion again, because she knows how to win, and she’d been getting through the draw quietly as others have been granted all the limelight, but with all the other former champions gone, the French Open finalists gone and the British women too, she returned to Centre Court (remember, like everyone, she couldn’t play in 2020, and was injured last year, but the last time she played on CC she was blistering) the slight favourite, having beaten Badosa on clay this year, not dropped a set all tournament – and I remembered being informed on Saturday that the three players who’d won more matches than Anisimova this year were Switatek, Jabeur and…Halep, despite her lower ranking.
Badosa served first and won easily enough. Halep served next and won easily enough. And then she played another return game and she was stunning, meeting Badosa’s pace, redirecting the ball, running to return what might have been winners against other players, winning point after point, breaking before the crowd had fully returned, breaking again and again to win 6-1 as if she were world number 1 again playing some nobody. Which Badosa is not, but she kept missing or watching a winner pass her. The second set was slightly better for the Spanish player, her best tactic was down the middle and deep because Halep couldn’t find the angles, but then Halep broke her again and, despite facing a leeetle more pressure on her serve, finished the demolition job, and put down a marker for the rest of the female players.
I wasn’t that interested in the stories that had started on Saturday: Anisimova will face Halep next, having beaten Tan, but I don’t know whether Halep is such a bete noire for her as the Romanian is for Badosa now, but I don’t think she’s got enough to trouble Halep if she’s focused like this. Cornet is out too. As I said, Halep is the last Champion standing, and Jabeur’s the only top seed left with pedigree, and most of the names that were talked about have dropped away, which is not that surprising on the women’s side,
I next watched the whole Nadal vs van der Vanderschlup match, which felt like it would be a test of where both were at. Nadal really pushed on the Dutchman’s first service game but he held, and had an easier job holding for most of the first set, until the final time, where Nadal broke, having seemingly figured out what he needed to do. Nadal got another break in the second set, and his opponent seemed dejected. I think it was mainly playing Nadal and what was coming back at him from the other side of the net, but this was also his first time on Centre (a quite subdued Centre all day) and the commentators saw a little weariness in his play in the third set. Nadal broke early, but then lost focus and was broken back to everyone else’s mild shock. Furious, he broke back immediately and maintained his intensity, while Vanderschlup was good enough to keep his serve and string together a few good points, but overall not enough of them, and Nadal was serving for the match. He double faulted. ‘Er, what?’ was my response, then came three unforced errors (there was just one good first serve in the game) and it was even and everyone, including Vanderschlup was surprised he was still on the court. Nadal is human after all, commentators commented (McEnroe was one of them and as appreciative of Nadal as of Djokovic.) Both players held serve for a tie break, which Nadal led, but failed to convert three match points. He took the next, though, but that was an unusual final wobble, and Lopez claimed it was lack of focus, Cash would later claim it was the light. Up until then he had by far been the sharper and the stronger player. He faces Taylor Fritz, the last American standing, who is through to a QF for the first time.
[Edited for typos 27/2/25.]
