![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
US OPEN: Final shot
Sep. 10th, 2007 07:23 pmI added a couple of links to yesterday's post on Meg Cabot and L. M. Montgomery, the premise of which I almost feel the need to disclaim today.
I'd read the result of the men's final before seeing the highlights programme this afternoon. Though with all those set points in the first set, I could almost believe that I'd been lied to about the score...Almost. Ouch to Djokovic on the double faults that handed Federer the first set. As others have said, the champion raised his game on the key points. Or did enough to win. Djokovic is young, he's taken the next step to get to the final (helped by Nadal being out of sorts?). I'm not sure that he has the weapons to make it to the next level of winning a Slam, but he's staked his claim as a serious contender.
And now that the results are through, and all that really matters is who won, it's worth looking at how the seedings ran more or less true - Kusnetzova becoming no. 2 seed after Sharapova crashed out. I presume Nadal is still no. 2, but Djokovic was probably the second most talked about player going into the tournament. And the world no. 1's both win - Federer adding another slam to the record-making list, Henin too, to a lesser extent. Whatever happened in the final, in defeating the Williams sisters, she'd proved a lot.
If Eurosport got the rights to more matches and dropped Frew "Random" Macmillan as a commentator next year, I wouldn't be too upset. The directors weren't as poncey as in the French, (a tennis tournament is not about proving you're an auteur) but I do prefer the bird's eye view of the court rather than the above the player perspective where you can only see one side of the court clearly for the main run of a point. And why were the ballkids wearing a depiction of a polo player on horseback, of all things, on their shirts?
I'd read the result of the men's final before seeing the highlights programme this afternoon. Though with all those set points in the first set, I could almost believe that I'd been lied to about the score...Almost. Ouch to Djokovic on the double faults that handed Federer the first set. As others have said, the champion raised his game on the key points. Or did enough to win. Djokovic is young, he's taken the next step to get to the final (helped by Nadal being out of sorts?). I'm not sure that he has the weapons to make it to the next level of winning a Slam, but he's staked his claim as a serious contender.
And now that the results are through, and all that really matters is who won, it's worth looking at how the seedings ran more or less true - Kusnetzova becoming no. 2 seed after Sharapova crashed out. I presume Nadal is still no. 2, but Djokovic was probably the second most talked about player going into the tournament. And the world no. 1's both win - Federer adding another slam to the record-making list, Henin too, to a lesser extent. Whatever happened in the final, in defeating the Williams sisters, she'd proved a lot.
If Eurosport got the rights to more matches and dropped Frew "Random" Macmillan as a commentator next year, I wouldn't be too upset. The directors weren't as poncey as in the French, (a tennis tournament is not about proving you're an auteur) but I do prefer the bird's eye view of the court rather than the above the player perspective where you can only see one side of the court clearly for the main run of a point. And why were the ballkids wearing a depiction of a polo player on horseback, of all things, on their shirts?
