TENNIS: The rest of Wimbledon 2022
Jul. 17th, 2022 08:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feather_ghyllSingles quarter finals (Tuesday):
I focused on the men. The tastiest QF, probably, was the first on Centre Court: Djokovic against Sinner, who might not be the seed expected to appear at this stage, but he’d proved he was more experienced and able (for now) than Alcaraz, but might test Djokovic, perhaps.
Well, Djokovic seemed to have turned up more prepared than in the previous round, and Sinner dropped his first service game. But he stabilised, and Djokovic…wavered. Increasingly, it seemed to be a problem in his head, he didn’t seem to have a response as Sinner played better and better, bossed him in the baseline rallies, held his serve, broke Djokovic’s and was up one set…and then the second set.
I started watching this over the afternoon coffee break, paused, and didn’t watch all of it, but by the start of the third set, it looked like being the turning point time, would Djokovic return to compete or let Sinner win? Sinner had been doing well against a not-quite-himself defending champion, but Sinner could not quite put Djokovic down at the start of the third, and suddenly Djokovic did regain himself and start to play at the level you’d expect. I started fast forwarding (and hopping off to the laptop to keep an eye as there was plenty of it.)
I then chose to watch the Norrie match, joining it towards the end of the second set, to learn that Norrie had not been playing like his usual self, had lost his feel and wasn’t putting enough pressure on Goffin, except right at the end of the second set, when he was able to do so. Tested, under the strain of playing for his first grand slam semi too, Goffin blinked a little and Norrie won. One set all, and then, at the very start of the third, I could see what the commentators were talking about, Norrie couldn’t get enough first serves in, kept making uncharacteristic errors and was always in trouble. It was very frustrating for him, I’m sure. If he’d been playing as he had all tournament and Goffin were outplaying him, that would be one thing, but he wasn’t. Norrie went two sets to one down.
The crowd wanted to lift Norrie, but would they able to? Johnny Mac joined the commentating team, and still believed Norrie could win, I don’t know if they got the info from Hawkeye to answer his question about whether Norrie had returned from that far back all match and given Goffin such ‘real estate’. His co-commentators couldn’t answer him.
But anyway, due to that strange alchemy of playing at home, Norrie began to regain his game. Shots went where he wanted them to more often, and his fitness helped him return more shots, and put more pressure on Goffin, who faltered a little. He wasn’t just playing one player, albeit one who was suddenly playing much more like his ranking, but thousands, and Norrie won the fourth set. The fifth was tense – I cynically think this will have endeared Norrie no end to British tennis fans – but he really lifted his play towards the end of the fifth set, and dominated Goffin fairly thoroughly. It was great to watch the realisation of what he’d done sink in. Presumably, the thought of what he was trying to do stopped him from producing the tennis that would get him there for so much of the match.
(Wednesday):
I stayed with Centre Court, starting to watch the Halep vs Anisimova match, pausing and rejoining. Anisimova kept her opening service game, so did Halep, and then Halep started to do her thing of retrieving, redirecting and eliciting errors from her opponent. It was soon a double break, and the set was won in half an hour.
And on it went, Halep was devastating and Anisimova could only manage a couple of alternate plans, none of which seemed to work, and what options did she have? Another double break to Halep, and Anisimova was coming on to serve to stay in the match, getting pity applause to lift her. And it seemed to work a little, and she played a tighter game with a few more winners. Not only that but she broke back one of the breaks, but when Halep served for it the second time, she won it and the match.
She really looks like she’s the Halep of 2019, but with a better serve!
I then watched Nadal against Taylor Fritz, about whom I didn’t know much. Nadal broke early, but Fritz fought back – he has a big serve, and won the first set. Okay. But in the second set, Nadal broke again, but was broken back, and then suddenly the commentators were drawing our attention to the fact that Nadal wasn’t looking right, his serve was slower, and he called for medical assistance. It seemed to be an abdominal strain, and he still clearly wasn’t right, but somehow he kept things on an even keel until he broke to win the set!? Fritz seemed to be thrown by facing an injured player.
I stopped trusting in early breaks, and Fritz won in the third set, but by the final two sets, Nadal seemed to be regaining his ability to move and hit. He won th fourth, and got a break early in the fifth, but Fritz was able to break back.
Pat Cash made the point that Fritz, who hadn’t lost a serve until this match, hadn’t faced a top class opponent (although is anyone truly in the same class as Nadal and Djokovic?) so Nadal was asking him awkward questions for the first time this tournament by putting such pressure on him. He rebounded sometimes, but not enough, and this wasn’t vintage Nadal, it was Nadal finding a way until the latter stage of the match. And he was brilliant in the championship tiebreak (first to 10).
Hopefully, he will be fit to face Kyrgios (blech, but unsurprising he won a weary opponent.) And it is a marketable Wimbledon men’s semi-finals – the two Great Ones, a Brit playing at home and the talented bad boy of tennis (except Kyrgios, it was announced a day or so ago, will be required to go to a court of law to face charges of assault against an ex.)
Women’s semi-finals/Mixed doubles finals (Thursday):
The women’s semi-finals involve one player who’s been there
before and has name recognition, a top seed with perhaps some name recognition and two others, but one’s used to that on the women’s side.
I got to see all of the women’s semi-finals, which meant watching three of them play for the first time this Wimbledon. The two semis promised to be a contrast, and were. The sheer sound the ball made meeting the strings in the first was so different. Jabeur was the favourite, but what must it be like playing for your continent? Her opponent was a good friend (I was dreading a rerun of the miserable Williams sisters matches) and had returned to tennis after her second child was born and was finding a real run of form. She’d come back from a set and more down repeatedly this Wimbledon, and, I learned, had put out Ostapenko.
But Jabeur was stronger in the first set, relaxing after a break and holds, and having too much. The second set, though, was different. Jabeur’s level slightly dropped, and when Maria’s game clicked, it dropped a little more. Maria had a serve and slices, Jabeur had all sorts, drop shots and I wish my eyesight enabled me to see what she was doing better. But she composed herself in the third set – winning through to their first slam final was the aim for both women – and found her confidence, and took control. The celebration was really lovely, you don’t often see that.
And so on to the second match, in which I was more invested, and fully expected to involve bigger hitting (it did). Russian-born Khazak Rybakina started confidently, turning out to be a clean striker with excellent timing, her game being based on her serve. And she broke Halep in the first game. Halep wasn’t serving as well as she has been, and although she settled and did her usual thing of retrieving one more ball, Rybakina calmly used a variety of serves, good, fast ones, and never looked in trouble in the first set.
But Halep was determined to fight in the second set, yet although she had a couple of good service games, in the main, she was missing her first serve and her second was all too easy for Rybakina to do what Badosa and Anisimova had failed to. Then came that game where Halep served three double faults, which you just can’t do, and handed a break. Rybakina then followed that up with her worst game where, error by error, some forced by Halep, but not all, she handed it right back. But then Halep’s weaker serving was met by Rybakina’s easy power and composure and it was another break, and although, playing the sort of game that the grass enables, the younger player (who apparently was building up a run just before the lockdown hit) won through to her maiden slam.
So, two first-time finalists with a very different game, one of which will become a fresh new Wimbledon champion, and the Halep story ends.
I do not understand why the mixed doubles final was held on a Thursday night. It was slightly delayed because one of the players had already been in a marathon five setter (men’s doubles), but I watched a lot of it. Defending champions Neal Skupski (Scouse) and Desirae Krawczyk (Amercian) were facing Aussies Matthew Ebdon, the man who’d already been on court for fourth and a half hours and Sam Stosur (I was pleased to see her again. They never mentioned her age.) And the Aussies were better for much of the set – I watched the 16-minute Skupski serving game, but the other two always, just, beat them back, and had scoreboard superiority, snuck a break (off the male player) to steal the first set against the run of play, thanks to the tennis scoring system. In fairness, they played the big points better, with Krawzyk playing her way back into a good volley game.
And they took that momentum into the second set, breaking both their opponents, keeping their serves, and Skupski served it out formidably, to win in front of a delighted mostly full crowd. Krawkzyk couldn’t quite believe it.
And then I watched the news and learned that Nadal had to retire and I groaned fairly loudly, because that gives Kyrgios a walkover into the final. I am trying to console myself with Djokovic (the likely winner of the semi) and Norrie’s fitness levels, but however well he has played, and however bright his talent, ugh, Kyrgios. I wouldn’t have agreed on Wednesday, but maybe Rafa’s father was right and he should have retired so that Kyrgios could face a fit opponent, although I think the Aussie has more game than Fritz. And gamesmanship, which is the problem.
Men’s singles semi-final, ladies doubles semi-final (Friday):
I ignored the first ladies doubles semi-final – moved to Centre Court because of the Nadal retirement. For one thing, John Inverdale was ‘commentating’.
The men’s semi started with two breaks, a stabilising service game from Djokovic and Norrie, in which Djokovic still didn’t seem to be settled. He made a string of unforced errors and gifted a break to Norrie who looked calmer and more fired up and was handed another break to win the first. Dangerous?
Well, after a toilet break Djokovic came back with a cap on and concentrated on keeping his serve. He got break points on Norrie’s games, but the leftie staved them off until a game, possibly after a slip took away his confidence in his movement with, IIRC, double faults and a horror of a volley gifting his opponent the break. One set all and Djokovic was playing better as Norrie’s level dipped a little, and in the next two sets, Djokovic looked more like himself and it was Norrie making the errors and getting pretty much nowhere on Djokovic’s serve. Early breaks, and although Norrie served better towards the end of the fourth set, it felt that it was going to go one way.
If you’d told me beforehand that Norrie would get a set, I’d have said, ‘Good,’ but the fact that it was the first set and the hope that engendered (particularly as Norrie has a winning record against Kyrgios, which Djokovic doesn’t) even as I could see it was more about Djokovic not playing at a high enough level more than Norrie playing at his best, although I was relieved Norrie was much more up for it than he was at the start of his quarters, led to disappointment.
Oh well, it’ll be interesting to see how Norrie reacts to his first big run at a slam, even one in which the men’s field in particular was weaker. I have to agree that he hasn’t got the game that Sinner and Alcaraz do, or Kyrgios’s prodigious talent, and I’d also point out that I’ve been wondering ‘what’s happening with Shapalov?’ all grass courts season. The answer was that he was out quite early. Berrettini must have been so frustrated.
Anyhow, for what it’s worth, this may be one of the few times where I go into a men’s final rooting for Djokovic. Over the years, I’ve preferred players who hit more winners. Let’s face it his game isn’t as attractive as Nadal’s, Federer’s or Berrettini’s, it just isn’t, and except where he swears or lets his mood get in the way of his play, I’ve never minded Murray’s cussedness, whereas the more Djokovic gets all roaring Serb, the more I eyeroll. But apparently I’ll side with an anti-vaxxer over an alleged woman assaulter with a history of gamesmanship, because Djokovic does stand for professionalism and application in that scenario.
I then watched the second ladies’ doubles semi-final with residual support for Krawczyk, but she and her American partner Collins started off poorly, going 5-0 down against Zhang and Mertens. They kept their next two serves, and when the second set started were much more in it, while Mertens’s level dropped. There were entertaining rallies – I hit pause and came back to watch the end of the match later when I could actually see the play better, but Mertens regrouped, the top seeds were once again the better players and will face the no. 2 seeds.
As for the women’s singles final, I’m relatively neutral and hoping the clash of styles will lead to an entertaining match. The women’s side has been as topsy-turvy as ever, Swiatek’s grass-court game wasn’t yet ready for her to dominate here as well, and although the Russians and Belarussians were absent and there were a couple of big injury withdrawals, the fact that everyone still believes they have a shot meant that Wimbledon didn’t feel like an exhibition.
Women’s single final, men’s doubles final (Saturday):
I watched the BBC One coverage, and didn’t like the first feature for various reasons. Sue Barker got to talk to mainly the same old players in the build-up. Respect to Billie Jean King for pointing out that Suzanne Lenglen had a lot to do with moving Wimbledon to its current location because she was such a star. I was amused that King claimed that she was wearing purple for Wimbledon and equality, and Navratilova added ‘for royalty’ because what screams equality more than royalty? We needed to be introduced to both players, and they did a lovely job of showing what Ons Jabeur meant to Tunisia. Pam Shriver tried to argue that the story of this Championship was that all the continents were represented (bar South America, perhaps) but that brought us to the tricky truth that if Rybakina won, it would be the first time a Khazakstani player won, except she’s very much ‘from Khazakstan’, which would just be that thing that happens with sport, and if the rich head of Khazakstan’s tennis federation uses all these adopted players to inspire Khazakstani (or is in Khazak kids?) to play, that’s something. But I’d already presumed that most of Elena Rybakina’s family would be living in Russia, and it was suggested in one passing comment that she lives there, and John MacEnroe was the only one to mention that elephant in the room, because if, for all the banning of Russians and Belarussians, Wimbledon prize money would go to Muscovite tax coffers, that’s not great, is it?
But let’s talk about a clash of styles and how nerves will affect both grand slam final debutants! That was the tone.
I sat down feeling a little more kindly inclined to Jabeur, who unquestionably represents Tunisia and Arab-African women. I wonder how much COVID or the women’s Euros had to do with the fact that we had two male commentators and one female commentator. Tracey Austin CLEARLY knew both women’s games the best.
Jabeur had put Rybakina in to serve first, and I thought that at least both were playing, neither with the petrification that struck Pliskova last year, but Jabeur was clearly playing better, getting the match to be on her terms and her variety was stopping Rybakina from getting a rhythm. She was certainly in control in the first set, but I found myself rooting for Rybakina, perhaps because she was now the underdog, perhaps because I’d rather watch winners than slices drawing out errors. But Jabeur had the first set in her pocket after a second break.
And then young Rybakina must have thought very clearly during the changeover, because she started making some of the adjustments suggested by Austin and MacEnroe in the commentating box, and Jabeur was a little too loose and got broken. Rybakina consolidated it, in part because Jabeur forgot to slice. By the time she’d started to do so again, Rybakina could deal with it, even introduced a few slices herself, and was serving with more authority. It took her, the ace machine, over an hour to get her first, but it was clear we had a match, until Rybakina took her momentum into the third set, while Jabeur took some of her errors. There was one game where Jabeur had 0-30 and was denied a break (because we got to see Hawkeye all the times the players didn’t challenge, wrongly trusting the umpire) and Rybakina’s confidence was such that despite some poor volleys and gimmes before, she was coming to the net more aggressively, even. She was clearly unable to rely on the first serve for much of the final game, but she found a way, and then, hilariously, we had the most subdued celebration imaginable.
Well, it made me laugh, but I was still enraged by a reporter trying to make out that being introverted is a character failing.
She seemed a little stunned, although she did, like a visibly disappointed Jabeur, give a classy speech to Sue and started believing she’d won more once she held the beautiful trophy. But Sue was denied the hugs with her team.
Ah well, one can’t begrudge Rybakina her win as an individual, she adapted and imposed her will for the last two sets. As her coach and Navratilova said, she has potential, with areas to improve upon. The post-match analysis from Wozniacki and Navratilova was amusingly different from the commentators’ views. I think everyone has been burned by all the different Slam winners from rushing to predict that she’ll be the new multiple slam winner – people who’ve been watching all the tennis this year rush to mention Swiatek, now that Barty’s out of the picture and Osaka hasn’t won anything for a while.
I then had the men’s doubles on in the background, going to pay more attention at the ends of sets. The big story was that Pavic had broken a bone in his non-dominant wrist and couldn’t use that hand. The Croatian pair were looking to defend their title, something one of their opponents, Ebdon, had had to face in the mixed doubles finals. Apparently that was held on a Thursdsay night to give it its own slot, and on the calculation that it was better to hold it after the women’s semis than the men’s, which could theoretically involve two five setters.
Two tiebreaks, then the Croatians got a break in the third set to give them a two set to one lead. But the Aussies broke in the fourth. In the fifth, the defending champions had a break, but were broken back, leading to a champions tiebreak in which the Aussies, especially Max Purcell, got inspired and thumped them.
Men’s singles final and women’s doubles final (Sunday):
I started watching the coverage on BBC One, and Sue Barker, quite rightly, got to present the opening featurette and we got the views of champions, with Henman (semi-finalist/hill named for him) and Woodbridge thinking it would be Djokovic, Cash saying he really couldn’t call it, while a Kyrgios apologist er, fan/fellow Australian believed it would be Kyrgios. At least Barker did mention the fact he’s accused of assault and will be going to court over it, among the talk of his bad behaviour, wins, Nadal’s retirement, and Djokovic’s problems due to his vaccination status. Barker got a nice walk and talk with McEnroe, taking the route the players soon would and looking at the historic photos. He paid her the (possibly) overblown compliment that she’s the Federer of broadcasting.
Simon ‘anti-introverts’ Munday gave a rundown of the men’s singles championship (the more I think about it, the more I’d say that Sinner really impressed) and the times he’d sidled up to unsuspecting tennis fans with a microphone. Boris Becker only got a passing mention in the feature the entirety of which I spent guessing who was declaiming the words, I was sure they were a theatrical actor, but it turned out to be Eddie Butler. Well done, him.
It was weird to be preparing to watch a Wimbledon final featuring Djokovic and be supporting him, for Application and Professionalism. (The reason ex Aussie champs wouldn’t say a bad word about Ash Barty is because Ash Barty didn’t go around swearing and utilising gamesmanship and made the most of her talent, Nick Kyrgios.)
Respectful Kyrgios turned up and put Djokovic in to serve, which he did very well, but perhaps Kyrgios did better. He’d come with a game plan, and was using all sorts of variety to deny Djokovic a rhythm and elicited a surprising break. So he’d had the required good start and Djokovic had turned up to play, more with it than at the start of the previous two rounds.
But with the second set, Djokovic the champion turned up, managing his service games well and starting to read Kyrgios’s serve, and one of the keys to this match was the greatest returner bettering one of the best serves in the game. He started dictating the kind of play that was going on, frustrating Kyrgios, and he was the one to break. His standard was high, and the question was whether Kyrgios was used to playing at this altitude, facing this pressure as Djokovic served to his forehand, got balls back, made him play one more shot and, for a wonder, utilised the drop shot magnificently.
He was doing the same in the third set, and then pulled Kyrgios back from 40-0 to get a break, and Kyrgios was…blaming his team for their lack of support instead of recognising that it was his opponent’s tennis.
He got warned once for an obscenity, and Andrew Castle had to apologise for other audible swearwords. I imagine the Duchess and Duke of Cambridge told the impressionable future king/primary school aged boy very firmly that he was NOT allowed to use those words that the angry Australia man was using. (I presume that he’d been told he could go to the final before the realised who was playing.) She’d have every right to thank Kyrgios for teaching her son and any other child in Centre Court new words when distributing the trophy, but I suppose she wouldn’t have.
Kyrgios kind of gave away the third set, although Djokovic had been putting relentless pressure on him, mostly winning his own service games far more easily. He was more focused and professional. I did join Tim Henman in querying whether he ought to have stayed on court after the third set and continued with the momentum, but the play seemed to be following the same pattern, with Djokovic heaping more pressure on Kyrgios and Kyrgios sometimes not helping himself.
I had to leave procedings and rejoined on the Centre Court stream and Kyrgios just about managed to keep holding his serve, but double faulted on the first point of the tiebreak. Djokovic made a mistake to return to it being on serve, but disliked having done so so much that he outplayed Kyrgios to gain five match points, and the first one on his serve...he won, having outclassed Kyrgios, having found a way to beat a player he’d let get to him in the past (although I think Henman was right, that was five years ago and not over five sets, let along at a Grand Slam final, so perhaps not so relevant.)
I thought the crowd were less on Djokovic’s back than they’ve ever been, yes, there were Kyrgios supporters, but there was quite a warm reception as ‘Nole’ won, although I may be biased and attributing my own turnaround to them. What was staggering was being reminded Djokovic has won the last four Wimbledons consecutively. (Only Andy Murray has beat him in finalsl) Seven in total, making him as dominant as Sampras. Since beating Federer in 2019, he is unquestionably supreme here (wouldn’t it have been fun seeing him against Nadal? Well, it would also have been fun to see him play Berrettini who also has an excellent serve and wouldn’t have handed over the third.) Like many others, Kyrgios has now seen what it takes to play at a final, and that in a year where he skipped a round. I mean, he said he was tired and he avoided facing Nadal in the semis. And some of those five setters he played were because of his mental ill-discipline. Djokovic reflexively said he was sure we’d see Kyrgios in other grand slam finals, but on a bit more consideration, I’m not so sure.
Djokovic was very much the family man in his answers/speech.
I missed the analysis and presumable fuss of Sue Barker that must have been on BBC One on the day, but went back to it the next day. Barker herself seemed to be the only one surprised by the tribute, and moved.
I had the ladies doubles on in the background, but started watching it with the Czech team up 4-1 in the first set. And you could see why. They worked excellently as a team, communicating and covering for each other, while exposing that Mertens and Zhang had just come together for the grass court season (Mertens’s regular doubles partner is Belarussian Savalnka). I don’t know if it was the occasion – Mertens was a defending champion and it was Zhang’s first ladies doubles final at Wimbledon, but they didn’t adapt their play much after losing the first set, and although they broke Simiakova and Kraijikova in the second set, the Czechs did not like it and broke back to love and marched on. And good for them, Kraijikova has had injuries this year, Wimbledon was the first time she’d had back-to-back wins in the singles since the Australian Open. They famously complement each other well, although it was a surprise that Kraijikova was the chatterbox in the interview, talking about begging her superstitious parents to come and see here this time, as she and her tennis partner won the Wimbledon title for the second time, having won all the other three once together.
[Edited for typos 28/2/25.]
I focused on the men. The tastiest QF, probably, was the first on Centre Court: Djokovic against Sinner, who might not be the seed expected to appear at this stage, but he’d proved he was more experienced and able (for now) than Alcaraz, but might test Djokovic, perhaps.
Well, Djokovic seemed to have turned up more prepared than in the previous round, and Sinner dropped his first service game. But he stabilised, and Djokovic…wavered. Increasingly, it seemed to be a problem in his head, he didn’t seem to have a response as Sinner played better and better, bossed him in the baseline rallies, held his serve, broke Djokovic’s and was up one set…and then the second set.
I started watching this over the afternoon coffee break, paused, and didn’t watch all of it, but by the start of the third set, it looked like being the turning point time, would Djokovic return to compete or let Sinner win? Sinner had been doing well against a not-quite-himself defending champion, but Sinner could not quite put Djokovic down at the start of the third, and suddenly Djokovic did regain himself and start to play at the level you’d expect. I started fast forwarding (and hopping off to the laptop to keep an eye as there was plenty of it.)
I then chose to watch the Norrie match, joining it towards the end of the second set, to learn that Norrie had not been playing like his usual self, had lost his feel and wasn’t putting enough pressure on Goffin, except right at the end of the second set, when he was able to do so. Tested, under the strain of playing for his first grand slam semi too, Goffin blinked a little and Norrie won. One set all, and then, at the very start of the third, I could see what the commentators were talking about, Norrie couldn’t get enough first serves in, kept making uncharacteristic errors and was always in trouble. It was very frustrating for him, I’m sure. If he’d been playing as he had all tournament and Goffin were outplaying him, that would be one thing, but he wasn’t. Norrie went two sets to one down.
The crowd wanted to lift Norrie, but would they able to? Johnny Mac joined the commentating team, and still believed Norrie could win, I don’t know if they got the info from Hawkeye to answer his question about whether Norrie had returned from that far back all match and given Goffin such ‘real estate’. His co-commentators couldn’t answer him.
But anyway, due to that strange alchemy of playing at home, Norrie began to regain his game. Shots went where he wanted them to more often, and his fitness helped him return more shots, and put more pressure on Goffin, who faltered a little. He wasn’t just playing one player, albeit one who was suddenly playing much more like his ranking, but thousands, and Norrie won the fourth set. The fifth was tense – I cynically think this will have endeared Norrie no end to British tennis fans – but he really lifted his play towards the end of the fifth set, and dominated Goffin fairly thoroughly. It was great to watch the realisation of what he’d done sink in. Presumably, the thought of what he was trying to do stopped him from producing the tennis that would get him there for so much of the match.
(Wednesday):
I stayed with Centre Court, starting to watch the Halep vs Anisimova match, pausing and rejoining. Anisimova kept her opening service game, so did Halep, and then Halep started to do her thing of retrieving, redirecting and eliciting errors from her opponent. It was soon a double break, and the set was won in half an hour.
And on it went, Halep was devastating and Anisimova could only manage a couple of alternate plans, none of which seemed to work, and what options did she have? Another double break to Halep, and Anisimova was coming on to serve to stay in the match, getting pity applause to lift her. And it seemed to work a little, and she played a tighter game with a few more winners. Not only that but she broke back one of the breaks, but when Halep served for it the second time, she won it and the match.
She really looks like she’s the Halep of 2019, but with a better serve!
I then watched Nadal against Taylor Fritz, about whom I didn’t know much. Nadal broke early, but Fritz fought back – he has a big serve, and won the first set. Okay. But in the second set, Nadal broke again, but was broken back, and then suddenly the commentators were drawing our attention to the fact that Nadal wasn’t looking right, his serve was slower, and he called for medical assistance. It seemed to be an abdominal strain, and he still clearly wasn’t right, but somehow he kept things on an even keel until he broke to win the set!? Fritz seemed to be thrown by facing an injured player.
I stopped trusting in early breaks, and Fritz won in the third set, but by the final two sets, Nadal seemed to be regaining his ability to move and hit. He won th fourth, and got a break early in the fifth, but Fritz was able to break back.
Pat Cash made the point that Fritz, who hadn’t lost a serve until this match, hadn’t faced a top class opponent (although is anyone truly in the same class as Nadal and Djokovic?) so Nadal was asking him awkward questions for the first time this tournament by putting such pressure on him. He rebounded sometimes, but not enough, and this wasn’t vintage Nadal, it was Nadal finding a way until the latter stage of the match. And he was brilliant in the championship tiebreak (first to 10).
Hopefully, he will be fit to face Kyrgios (blech, but unsurprising he won a weary opponent.) And it is a marketable Wimbledon men’s semi-finals – the two Great Ones, a Brit playing at home and the talented bad boy of tennis (except Kyrgios, it was announced a day or so ago, will be required to go to a court of law to face charges of assault against an ex.)
Women’s semi-finals/Mixed doubles finals (Thursday):
The women’s semi-finals involve one player who’s been there
before and has name recognition, a top seed with perhaps some name recognition and two others, but one’s used to that on the women’s side.
I got to see all of the women’s semi-finals, which meant watching three of them play for the first time this Wimbledon. The two semis promised to be a contrast, and were. The sheer sound the ball made meeting the strings in the first was so different. Jabeur was the favourite, but what must it be like playing for your continent? Her opponent was a good friend (I was dreading a rerun of the miserable Williams sisters matches) and had returned to tennis after her second child was born and was finding a real run of form. She’d come back from a set and more down repeatedly this Wimbledon, and, I learned, had put out Ostapenko.
But Jabeur was stronger in the first set, relaxing after a break and holds, and having too much. The second set, though, was different. Jabeur’s level slightly dropped, and when Maria’s game clicked, it dropped a little more. Maria had a serve and slices, Jabeur had all sorts, drop shots and I wish my eyesight enabled me to see what she was doing better. But she composed herself in the third set – winning through to their first slam final was the aim for both women – and found her confidence, and took control. The celebration was really lovely, you don’t often see that.
And so on to the second match, in which I was more invested, and fully expected to involve bigger hitting (it did). Russian-born Khazak Rybakina started confidently, turning out to be a clean striker with excellent timing, her game being based on her serve. And she broke Halep in the first game. Halep wasn’t serving as well as she has been, and although she settled and did her usual thing of retrieving one more ball, Rybakina calmly used a variety of serves, good, fast ones, and never looked in trouble in the first set.
But Halep was determined to fight in the second set, yet although she had a couple of good service games, in the main, she was missing her first serve and her second was all too easy for Rybakina to do what Badosa and Anisimova had failed to. Then came that game where Halep served three double faults, which you just can’t do, and handed a break. Rybakina then followed that up with her worst game where, error by error, some forced by Halep, but not all, she handed it right back. But then Halep’s weaker serving was met by Rybakina’s easy power and composure and it was another break, and although, playing the sort of game that the grass enables, the younger player (who apparently was building up a run just before the lockdown hit) won through to her maiden slam.
So, two first-time finalists with a very different game, one of which will become a fresh new Wimbledon champion, and the Halep story ends.
I do not understand why the mixed doubles final was held on a Thursday night. It was slightly delayed because one of the players had already been in a marathon five setter (men’s doubles), but I watched a lot of it. Defending champions Neal Skupski (Scouse) and Desirae Krawczyk (Amercian) were facing Aussies Matthew Ebdon, the man who’d already been on court for fourth and a half hours and Sam Stosur (I was pleased to see her again. They never mentioned her age.) And the Aussies were better for much of the set – I watched the 16-minute Skupski serving game, but the other two always, just, beat them back, and had scoreboard superiority, snuck a break (off the male player) to steal the first set against the run of play, thanks to the tennis scoring system. In fairness, they played the big points better, with Krawzyk playing her way back into a good volley game.
And they took that momentum into the second set, breaking both their opponents, keeping their serves, and Skupski served it out formidably, to win in front of a delighted mostly full crowd. Krawkzyk couldn’t quite believe it.
And then I watched the news and learned that Nadal had to retire and I groaned fairly loudly, because that gives Kyrgios a walkover into the final. I am trying to console myself with Djokovic (the likely winner of the semi) and Norrie’s fitness levels, but however well he has played, and however bright his talent, ugh, Kyrgios. I wouldn’t have agreed on Wednesday, but maybe Rafa’s father was right and he should have retired so that Kyrgios could face a fit opponent, although I think the Aussie has more game than Fritz. And gamesmanship, which is the problem.
Men’s singles semi-final, ladies doubles semi-final (Friday):
I ignored the first ladies doubles semi-final – moved to Centre Court because of the Nadal retirement. For one thing, John Inverdale was ‘commentating’.
The men’s semi started with two breaks, a stabilising service game from Djokovic and Norrie, in which Djokovic still didn’t seem to be settled. He made a string of unforced errors and gifted a break to Norrie who looked calmer and more fired up and was handed another break to win the first. Dangerous?
Well, after a toilet break Djokovic came back with a cap on and concentrated on keeping his serve. He got break points on Norrie’s games, but the leftie staved them off until a game, possibly after a slip took away his confidence in his movement with, IIRC, double faults and a horror of a volley gifting his opponent the break. One set all and Djokovic was playing better as Norrie’s level dipped a little, and in the next two sets, Djokovic looked more like himself and it was Norrie making the errors and getting pretty much nowhere on Djokovic’s serve. Early breaks, and although Norrie served better towards the end of the fourth set, it felt that it was going to go one way.
If you’d told me beforehand that Norrie would get a set, I’d have said, ‘Good,’ but the fact that it was the first set and the hope that engendered (particularly as Norrie has a winning record against Kyrgios, which Djokovic doesn’t) even as I could see it was more about Djokovic not playing at a high enough level more than Norrie playing at his best, although I was relieved Norrie was much more up for it than he was at the start of his quarters, led to disappointment.
Oh well, it’ll be interesting to see how Norrie reacts to his first big run at a slam, even one in which the men’s field in particular was weaker. I have to agree that he hasn’t got the game that Sinner and Alcaraz do, or Kyrgios’s prodigious talent, and I’d also point out that I’ve been wondering ‘what’s happening with Shapalov?’ all grass courts season. The answer was that he was out quite early. Berrettini must have been so frustrated.
Anyhow, for what it’s worth, this may be one of the few times where I go into a men’s final rooting for Djokovic. Over the years, I’ve preferred players who hit more winners. Let’s face it his game isn’t as attractive as Nadal’s, Federer’s or Berrettini’s, it just isn’t, and except where he swears or lets his mood get in the way of his play, I’ve never minded Murray’s cussedness, whereas the more Djokovic gets all roaring Serb, the more I eyeroll. But apparently I’ll side with an anti-vaxxer over an alleged woman assaulter with a history of gamesmanship, because Djokovic does stand for professionalism and application in that scenario.
I then watched the second ladies’ doubles semi-final with residual support for Krawczyk, but she and her American partner Collins started off poorly, going 5-0 down against Zhang and Mertens. They kept their next two serves, and when the second set started were much more in it, while Mertens’s level dropped. There were entertaining rallies – I hit pause and came back to watch the end of the match later when I could actually see the play better, but Mertens regrouped, the top seeds were once again the better players and will face the no. 2 seeds.
As for the women’s singles final, I’m relatively neutral and hoping the clash of styles will lead to an entertaining match. The women’s side has been as topsy-turvy as ever, Swiatek’s grass-court game wasn’t yet ready for her to dominate here as well, and although the Russians and Belarussians were absent and there were a couple of big injury withdrawals, the fact that everyone still believes they have a shot meant that Wimbledon didn’t feel like an exhibition.
Women’s single final, men’s doubles final (Saturday):
I watched the BBC One coverage, and didn’t like the first feature for various reasons. Sue Barker got to talk to mainly the same old players in the build-up. Respect to Billie Jean King for pointing out that Suzanne Lenglen had a lot to do with moving Wimbledon to its current location because she was such a star. I was amused that King claimed that she was wearing purple for Wimbledon and equality, and Navratilova added ‘for royalty’ because what screams equality more than royalty? We needed to be introduced to both players, and they did a lovely job of showing what Ons Jabeur meant to Tunisia. Pam Shriver tried to argue that the story of this Championship was that all the continents were represented (bar South America, perhaps) but that brought us to the tricky truth that if Rybakina won, it would be the first time a Khazakstani player won, except she’s very much ‘from Khazakstan’, which would just be that thing that happens with sport, and if the rich head of Khazakstan’s tennis federation uses all these adopted players to inspire Khazakstani (or is in Khazak kids?) to play, that’s something. But I’d already presumed that most of Elena Rybakina’s family would be living in Russia, and it was suggested in one passing comment that she lives there, and John MacEnroe was the only one to mention that elephant in the room, because if, for all the banning of Russians and Belarussians, Wimbledon prize money would go to Muscovite tax coffers, that’s not great, is it?
But let’s talk about a clash of styles and how nerves will affect both grand slam final debutants! That was the tone.
I sat down feeling a little more kindly inclined to Jabeur, who unquestionably represents Tunisia and Arab-African women. I wonder how much COVID or the women’s Euros had to do with the fact that we had two male commentators and one female commentator. Tracey Austin CLEARLY knew both women’s games the best.
Jabeur had put Rybakina in to serve first, and I thought that at least both were playing, neither with the petrification that struck Pliskova last year, but Jabeur was clearly playing better, getting the match to be on her terms and her variety was stopping Rybakina from getting a rhythm. She was certainly in control in the first set, but I found myself rooting for Rybakina, perhaps because she was now the underdog, perhaps because I’d rather watch winners than slices drawing out errors. But Jabeur had the first set in her pocket after a second break.
And then young Rybakina must have thought very clearly during the changeover, because she started making some of the adjustments suggested by Austin and MacEnroe in the commentating box, and Jabeur was a little too loose and got broken. Rybakina consolidated it, in part because Jabeur forgot to slice. By the time she’d started to do so again, Rybakina could deal with it, even introduced a few slices herself, and was serving with more authority. It took her, the ace machine, over an hour to get her first, but it was clear we had a match, until Rybakina took her momentum into the third set, while Jabeur took some of her errors. There was one game where Jabeur had 0-30 and was denied a break (because we got to see Hawkeye all the times the players didn’t challenge, wrongly trusting the umpire) and Rybakina’s confidence was such that despite some poor volleys and gimmes before, she was coming to the net more aggressively, even. She was clearly unable to rely on the first serve for much of the final game, but she found a way, and then, hilariously, we had the most subdued celebration imaginable.
Well, it made me laugh, but I was still enraged by a reporter trying to make out that being introverted is a character failing.
She seemed a little stunned, although she did, like a visibly disappointed Jabeur, give a classy speech to Sue and started believing she’d won more once she held the beautiful trophy. But Sue was denied the hugs with her team.
Ah well, one can’t begrudge Rybakina her win as an individual, she adapted and imposed her will for the last two sets. As her coach and Navratilova said, she has potential, with areas to improve upon. The post-match analysis from Wozniacki and Navratilova was amusingly different from the commentators’ views. I think everyone has been burned by all the different Slam winners from rushing to predict that she’ll be the new multiple slam winner – people who’ve been watching all the tennis this year rush to mention Swiatek, now that Barty’s out of the picture and Osaka hasn’t won anything for a while.
I then had the men’s doubles on in the background, going to pay more attention at the ends of sets. The big story was that Pavic had broken a bone in his non-dominant wrist and couldn’t use that hand. The Croatian pair were looking to defend their title, something one of their opponents, Ebdon, had had to face in the mixed doubles finals. Apparently that was held on a Thursdsay night to give it its own slot, and on the calculation that it was better to hold it after the women’s semis than the men’s, which could theoretically involve two five setters.
Two tiebreaks, then the Croatians got a break in the third set to give them a two set to one lead. But the Aussies broke in the fourth. In the fifth, the defending champions had a break, but were broken back, leading to a champions tiebreak in which the Aussies, especially Max Purcell, got inspired and thumped them.
Men’s singles final and women’s doubles final (Sunday):
I started watching the coverage on BBC One, and Sue Barker, quite rightly, got to present the opening featurette and we got the views of champions, with Henman (semi-finalist/hill named for him) and Woodbridge thinking it would be Djokovic, Cash saying he really couldn’t call it, while a Kyrgios apologist er, fan/fellow Australian believed it would be Kyrgios. At least Barker did mention the fact he’s accused of assault and will be going to court over it, among the talk of his bad behaviour, wins, Nadal’s retirement, and Djokovic’s problems due to his vaccination status. Barker got a nice walk and talk with McEnroe, taking the route the players soon would and looking at the historic photos. He paid her the (possibly) overblown compliment that she’s the Federer of broadcasting.
Simon ‘anti-introverts’ Munday gave a rundown of the men’s singles championship (the more I think about it, the more I’d say that Sinner really impressed) and the times he’d sidled up to unsuspecting tennis fans with a microphone. Boris Becker only got a passing mention in the feature the entirety of which I spent guessing who was declaiming the words, I was sure they were a theatrical actor, but it turned out to be Eddie Butler. Well done, him.
It was weird to be preparing to watch a Wimbledon final featuring Djokovic and be supporting him, for Application and Professionalism. (The reason ex Aussie champs wouldn’t say a bad word about Ash Barty is because Ash Barty didn’t go around swearing and utilising gamesmanship and made the most of her talent, Nick Kyrgios.)
Respectful Kyrgios turned up and put Djokovic in to serve, which he did very well, but perhaps Kyrgios did better. He’d come with a game plan, and was using all sorts of variety to deny Djokovic a rhythm and elicited a surprising break. So he’d had the required good start and Djokovic had turned up to play, more with it than at the start of the previous two rounds.
But with the second set, Djokovic the champion turned up, managing his service games well and starting to read Kyrgios’s serve, and one of the keys to this match was the greatest returner bettering one of the best serves in the game. He started dictating the kind of play that was going on, frustrating Kyrgios, and he was the one to break. His standard was high, and the question was whether Kyrgios was used to playing at this altitude, facing this pressure as Djokovic served to his forehand, got balls back, made him play one more shot and, for a wonder, utilised the drop shot magnificently.
He was doing the same in the third set, and then pulled Kyrgios back from 40-0 to get a break, and Kyrgios was…blaming his team for their lack of support instead of recognising that it was his opponent’s tennis.
He got warned once for an obscenity, and Andrew Castle had to apologise for other audible swearwords. I imagine the Duchess and Duke of Cambridge told the impressionable future king/primary school aged boy very firmly that he was NOT allowed to use those words that the angry Australia man was using. (I presume that he’d been told he could go to the final before the realised who was playing.) She’d have every right to thank Kyrgios for teaching her son and any other child in Centre Court new words when distributing the trophy, but I suppose she wouldn’t have.
Kyrgios kind of gave away the third set, although Djokovic had been putting relentless pressure on him, mostly winning his own service games far more easily. He was more focused and professional. I did join Tim Henman in querying whether he ought to have stayed on court after the third set and continued with the momentum, but the play seemed to be following the same pattern, with Djokovic heaping more pressure on Kyrgios and Kyrgios sometimes not helping himself.
I had to leave procedings and rejoined on the Centre Court stream and Kyrgios just about managed to keep holding his serve, but double faulted on the first point of the tiebreak. Djokovic made a mistake to return to it being on serve, but disliked having done so so much that he outplayed Kyrgios to gain five match points, and the first one on his serve...he won, having outclassed Kyrgios, having found a way to beat a player he’d let get to him in the past (although I think Henman was right, that was five years ago and not over five sets, let along at a Grand Slam final, so perhaps not so relevant.)
I thought the crowd were less on Djokovic’s back than they’ve ever been, yes, there were Kyrgios supporters, but there was quite a warm reception as ‘Nole’ won, although I may be biased and attributing my own turnaround to them. What was staggering was being reminded Djokovic has won the last four Wimbledons consecutively. (Only Andy Murray has beat him in finalsl) Seven in total, making him as dominant as Sampras. Since beating Federer in 2019, he is unquestionably supreme here (wouldn’t it have been fun seeing him against Nadal? Well, it would also have been fun to see him play Berrettini who also has an excellent serve and wouldn’t have handed over the third.) Like many others, Kyrgios has now seen what it takes to play at a final, and that in a year where he skipped a round. I mean, he said he was tired and he avoided facing Nadal in the semis. And some of those five setters he played were because of his mental ill-discipline. Djokovic reflexively said he was sure we’d see Kyrgios in other grand slam finals, but on a bit more consideration, I’m not so sure.
Djokovic was very much the family man in his answers/speech.
I missed the analysis and presumable fuss of Sue Barker that must have been on BBC One on the day, but went back to it the next day. Barker herself seemed to be the only one surprised by the tribute, and moved.
I had the ladies doubles on in the background, but started watching it with the Czech team up 4-1 in the first set. And you could see why. They worked excellently as a team, communicating and covering for each other, while exposing that Mertens and Zhang had just come together for the grass court season (Mertens’s regular doubles partner is Belarussian Savalnka). I don’t know if it was the occasion – Mertens was a defending champion and it was Zhang’s first ladies doubles final at Wimbledon, but they didn’t adapt their play much after losing the first set, and although they broke Simiakova and Kraijikova in the second set, the Czechs did not like it and broke back to love and marched on. And good for them, Kraijikova has had injuries this year, Wimbledon was the first time she’d had back-to-back wins in the singles since the Australian Open. They famously complement each other well, although it was a surprise that Kraijikova was the chatterbox in the interview, talking about begging her superstitious parents to come and see here this time, as she and her tennis partner won the Wimbledon title for the second time, having won all the other three once together.
[Edited for typos 28/2/25.]
