TENNIS: Mainly Queen's 2023
Jun. 26th, 2023 07:50 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feather_ghyllPeniston and Norrie made it through their first matches at Queen’s. Unsurprisingly, Claire Balding has replaced Sue Barker as the BBC’s tennis presenter. The BBC’s problem is that Amazon also has the rights to stream Queen’s (how, I know not), and they make it easy for you to catch up on one match, plus its analysis is far more incisive (yes, Balding is a good sports presenter, but we all know she doesn’t love tennis like she does horse racing, even if she isn’t as disdainful as John Inverdale. But the fact that he can turn up as a commentator among generalists and men of a certain vintage at Queen’s isn’t a bonus.) I know with Amazon it’s a case of having the money to throw at it, but I’ve been watching the tournament on it.
Which is to say I watched Seb Korda (coming back from injury at the Australian Open) versus Dan Evans (not in form.) There was interesting contrast between the young American (full of potential, wears a hairband, from a very high-achieving sporting family) against an awkward Englishman, who is one of the better volleyers in the game. As it turned out, Evans was really struggling on his serve, while Korda was winning his easily, having spent his time off ‘bulking up.’ Evans somehow lost a service game when he was 40-0 up. So Korda had to serve the first set out, and just when he was perhaps getting tight, he pulled off a tweener lob, and won the next two points to get the job done.
Evans’s serve improved a bit in the second set, but he never got anywhere on Korda’s, and when things started going awry at 5-5, Korda broke and served relatively easily. He’s reminded everyone how promising he is, although he wasn’t fully convincing at the net.
I wanted to see Alcaraz make his debut at Queen’s, where, instead of a qualifier, he faced a lucky loser in Arthur Rinderknech, who it turned out had a good serve and was willing to play attack with a good grasp of where he needed to be next. Alcaraz came across as not being entirely sure of himself on grass against an opponent who’d had two matches here. (Rinderknech had lost in the qualifiers to Dimitrov, who must be playing well. Apparently Dimitrov’s agent forgot to do the paperwork to get him in the main draw where he should have been.) Breaks came at the end of the first set, and it was Rinderknech who got himself more set points and converted.
There were moments where Alcaraz returned well, but his opponent was looking like the better grass-court player for much of the second set. But towards the end, Alcaraz decided to come in himself, and he was the one to dictate and win the second set.
Rinderknech had the advantage of serving first in the third, and, to his credit, he did not crumble, even though it must have felt more like he was now playing the no. 2 in the world, but when Alcaraz put pressure on him, he had a response. There were very entertaining rallies, and a few remarkable shots from Alcaraz. It came to a tiebreak, and that’s really when Alcaraz showed he has a champion’s mentality. I wasn’t the only one thinking we were seeing him adapt to playing on grass as we watched.
I watched the first set of Murray and De Minaur’s first-round encounter, and though Murray started well and was moving well, and got one bad call in the third game, his bigger problem was that De Minaur had improved certain aspects of his game – speed of serve and ground shots. Aussie De Minaur’s movement was good and he knew how to play on grass (although I don’t remember his past results on grass as being stellar.) You have to keep improving to stay in the top 20. After the Aussie no. 1 won the first set, I wasn’t surprised to learn he’d won the match. (This means Murray won’t be seeded at Wimbledon, so he won’t avoid the top 32 players. And they won’t avoid him.)
I watched Cameron Norrie against Jordan Thompson, which, on paper, ought to be Norrie’s, as the higher ranked player, even if their head to head was close and even if Thompson had played well on grass last week and knew his way around the surface. But Thompson was very good, his serve almost impenetrable, and then Norrie played two loose points in the game where Thompson broke him.
Tim Henman wanted Norrie to use the crowd, but Annabel Croft, commentating, noticed that Norrie was starting to target Thompson’s forehand, and getting results. Thompson was no longer looking the better player, and Norrie’s top 15 status was showing. He was the one to break, and was even stronger in the third set. (They didn’t mention it much in the commentary, being distracted by his run to the semis at Wimbledon last year, but he has been a finalist at Queen’s.)
I watched the first set of Rune vs. Peniston, because I wanted to see the former play on grass. He’d just won his first ATP match on the surface to get to this second round, but Daniela Hanchukova was arguing he might take to grass more quickly than Alcaraz. He certainly started better than Peniston, who yielded an early break, and was carrying that all around all set. Although he started playing better (and is way more experienced on grass than Rune) Peniston didn’t have the weight of shot. Rune was playing within himself and won the first set.
Discussion between the commentators moved to something I’ve been thinking about, namely how open the field is for the men at Wimbledon after Djokovic, who has to be favourite (and I’d put the asterisk of having won the French and his age maybe making Djokovic more vulnerable, as it did Nadal, although they’re different players.) Berretini is injured, and I don’t know whether Kyrigos will be playing at Wimbledon, but none of the other top players have been amazingly impressive at Wimbledon; for some of the youngest, headed by Alcaraz, there’s potential, but a lack of grass-court experience. Maybe that’s an opportunity for someone else, like Norrie last year.
I watched the second set between Rune and Peniston less intently, and the former was never under too much pressure, especially when Peniston handed him a break with a double fault.
I watched Alcaraz vs. Lehecka (who himself is only 21) and it was a much easier match-up for Alcaraz, who broke early and backed it up. It wasn’t a complete thrashing, but Lehecka went too hard and fast when he didn’t need to. The consensus was that he was playing the opponent, not the ball. (It was their first meeting.) Alcaraz was only bothered on serve once, and delivered some sizzling shots.
I dipped into Birmingham to watch a second round encounter between Venus Williams and Jelena Ostapenko, or at least until Ostapenko failed to convert match points in the second set. But she did win in the third set, as she should – however many flashes of brilliance the multiple grand slam champion showed.
Back to Queen’s for young gun seeds Lorenzo Musetti (so good to see him come through after noticing his potential at the French a few years ago) and Holger Rune, whose results have got him higher ranked. At first it started off equal, and then, beginning a match of ebbs and flows, Rune’s game dropped off while Musetti’s soared, and he was up 4-1. Rune called on a physio, and it was clear that something was up (later, it emerged he’d probably been gripping the racquet too hard,) but Musetti got distracted, and by the time Rune got back to 4-4, his level had increased and he won the first set.
The second was close, although Rune was frustrating Musetti, and while I’m not sure Musetti was aiming the smash straight at him as much as wanting to hit the ball really hard by this point, he hit the ball at a pace that would make for an impressive serve at Rune at a much closer range. Well. Although there were break points, it was Rune who broke and took his second match point.
Both young men are learning fast on grass. Musetti is a stylish, stylish player who also has power, although he wasn’t as consistent as he needed to be, but Rune had sound tactics, was willing to come forward, could improvise when necessary and also had plenty of power. A bit of a champion’s mentality there too.
Next up, Cameron Norrie (and his sun block) against Sebastian Korda, who, at 22, is relatively old! It soon became obvious that he had too much game, and broke Norrie. I watched the second set much less closely, and at least Norrie did push it into a tiebreak, but he played that poorly, so Korda was through in two sets.
I couldn’t watch Alcaraz vs Dimitrov, however intriguing, the same day, and left it until the Saturday. Dimitrov started poorly, gifting Alcaraz an early break. He settled during the rest of the first set, and started the second really well, but Alcaraz was thereabouts, drew level, but then got broken. Instead of consolidating, Dimitrov handed his opponent a break back, with poor double faults and errors. ‘Muchas gracias’ said the Spaniard and there you go.
There were a few points here and there where Alcaraz showed nerves or grass-court naivete, but mentally he didn’t waver as much as Dimitrov, who seemed to throw it in just when he was showing his experience on grass (having won at Queen’s before.) Three semi finalists between the ages of 20 and 22! The commentators seem to be favouring the lower ranked semi finalists, because their play has been better, while Rune and Alcaraz are still learning how to play on this surface (but learning fast, mark you!)
I beg De Minaur’s pardon, apparently, he’s only 24, but having won through to the semis her before and won a tournament on grass, he’s the more experienced on this surface. Rune started nervily, giving De Minaur a lead, and the Aussie played a tight rather than leaky game, even though Rune began competing more. But the Aussie was better on the grass. What I’ve learned is that Rune has a better tennis IQ and is more of a student of the sport than I thought, so his tactics were improving, but De Minaur did not go away.
Greg Rusedski had been touting Korda as the potential winner, and when you saw things like his serving figures, he did indeed look like the best player in the tournament. But after breaking Alcaraz in the first game, he was very nervy, and got broken back. Alcaraz seemed fully engaged and determined not to be broken from that point on, while Korda just never turned up. Apparently he has got tight and lost against the very best before, and Alcaraz is one of their number already.
Korda gave a few donations, and in the main Alcaraz was solid, occasionally brilliant (devastating forehands) and with great touch. Most of all his champion mentality shone through, generally he was mentally better, because he responds better to pressure, which is one of the reasons he’s top class (and if he wins Queen’s, he could regain world no. 1.) And Korda collapsed here, which is why he’s at his best ranking of 25. [ETA: it later emerged he had a hamstring problem, which probably contributed to the sub par performance.]
So, to the final. General agreement that the two best players in the tournament had got through, not that much discussion about who was favourite, although it seemed to be Alcaraz despite De Minaur’s grass-court experience. I was just hoping that De Minaur would bring it, without being afraid of the reputation (although what had happened when they’d last met over a year ago was interesting) so that it would be a good match. Daniela Hanchukova was in raptures over the state of the grass.
As the players came on, De Minaur got a decent reception, but Alcaraz got cheers, testament to his charisma, which wouldn’t matter as much if it weren’t for his prowess and results. Apparently he is all the kids’ favourites and very good about signing autographs.
It started off promisingly, but the turning point was midway through the first set, when De Minaur got some break points. Alcaraz did not like that, fought back to save them, and went at it in the next game, breaking De Minaur and going on to win the set. Some of his forehands in that set were absolute rockets, but what impressed me most was his mentality, that he was able to pull off the ever improving big serves, the power shots and the attacking forecourt shots when it mattered.
But then he had the trainer on, for some kind of strain, so the second set started off more subdued, before settling down. There were shots from both players that might have been winners against another player, but both moved well. However, De Minaur rather handed the break to Alcaraz, with two double faults in the one game and the last on break point. I thought Alcaraz would take that and run with it, but when he was serving for the match, some slight nerves came in and he was down 0-30. It was going big on the serves and at least one donation from De Minaur that helped him win that one. And fair play, that’s another final he’s won at the first time of asking. He’s not the complete grass court player yet, but rather an all court player with the championship’s mentality. Greg Rusedski made the point that he’s better on grass than Nadal was at the same age, and that if he had won Djokovic and then the French, Alcaraz wouldn’t have come to play at Queen’s, to the detriment of his grass-court game and near future chances at Wimbledon.
Fair enough too that he’s regained the world no. 1 ranking – he won a tournament that he can’t have expected to at the start of the week. Winning Queen’s ‘puts you in the conversation’, although it really is Djokovic who is the favourite and then the rest of the pack. [Edited for one typo 23/12/23.]
Which is to say I watched Seb Korda (coming back from injury at the Australian Open) versus Dan Evans (not in form.) There was interesting contrast between the young American (full of potential, wears a hairband, from a very high-achieving sporting family) against an awkward Englishman, who is one of the better volleyers in the game. As it turned out, Evans was really struggling on his serve, while Korda was winning his easily, having spent his time off ‘bulking up.’ Evans somehow lost a service game when he was 40-0 up. So Korda had to serve the first set out, and just when he was perhaps getting tight, he pulled off a tweener lob, and won the next two points to get the job done.
Evans’s serve improved a bit in the second set, but he never got anywhere on Korda’s, and when things started going awry at 5-5, Korda broke and served relatively easily. He’s reminded everyone how promising he is, although he wasn’t fully convincing at the net.
I wanted to see Alcaraz make his debut at Queen’s, where, instead of a qualifier, he faced a lucky loser in Arthur Rinderknech, who it turned out had a good serve and was willing to play attack with a good grasp of where he needed to be next. Alcaraz came across as not being entirely sure of himself on grass against an opponent who’d had two matches here. (Rinderknech had lost in the qualifiers to Dimitrov, who must be playing well. Apparently Dimitrov’s agent forgot to do the paperwork to get him in the main draw where he should have been.) Breaks came at the end of the first set, and it was Rinderknech who got himself more set points and converted.
There were moments where Alcaraz returned well, but his opponent was looking like the better grass-court player for much of the second set. But towards the end, Alcaraz decided to come in himself, and he was the one to dictate and win the second set.
Rinderknech had the advantage of serving first in the third, and, to his credit, he did not crumble, even though it must have felt more like he was now playing the no. 2 in the world, but when Alcaraz put pressure on him, he had a response. There were very entertaining rallies, and a few remarkable shots from Alcaraz. It came to a tiebreak, and that’s really when Alcaraz showed he has a champion’s mentality. I wasn’t the only one thinking we were seeing him adapt to playing on grass as we watched.
I watched the first set of Murray and De Minaur’s first-round encounter, and though Murray started well and was moving well, and got one bad call in the third game, his bigger problem was that De Minaur had improved certain aspects of his game – speed of serve and ground shots. Aussie De Minaur’s movement was good and he knew how to play on grass (although I don’t remember his past results on grass as being stellar.) You have to keep improving to stay in the top 20. After the Aussie no. 1 won the first set, I wasn’t surprised to learn he’d won the match. (This means Murray won’t be seeded at Wimbledon, so he won’t avoid the top 32 players. And they won’t avoid him.)
I watched Cameron Norrie against Jordan Thompson, which, on paper, ought to be Norrie’s, as the higher ranked player, even if their head to head was close and even if Thompson had played well on grass last week and knew his way around the surface. But Thompson was very good, his serve almost impenetrable, and then Norrie played two loose points in the game where Thompson broke him.
Tim Henman wanted Norrie to use the crowd, but Annabel Croft, commentating, noticed that Norrie was starting to target Thompson’s forehand, and getting results. Thompson was no longer looking the better player, and Norrie’s top 15 status was showing. He was the one to break, and was even stronger in the third set. (They didn’t mention it much in the commentary, being distracted by his run to the semis at Wimbledon last year, but he has been a finalist at Queen’s.)
I watched the first set of Rune vs. Peniston, because I wanted to see the former play on grass. He’d just won his first ATP match on the surface to get to this second round, but Daniela Hanchukova was arguing he might take to grass more quickly than Alcaraz. He certainly started better than Peniston, who yielded an early break, and was carrying that all around all set. Although he started playing better (and is way more experienced on grass than Rune) Peniston didn’t have the weight of shot. Rune was playing within himself and won the first set.
Discussion between the commentators moved to something I’ve been thinking about, namely how open the field is for the men at Wimbledon after Djokovic, who has to be favourite (and I’d put the asterisk of having won the French and his age maybe making Djokovic more vulnerable, as it did Nadal, although they’re different players.) Berretini is injured, and I don’t know whether Kyrigos will be playing at Wimbledon, but none of the other top players have been amazingly impressive at Wimbledon; for some of the youngest, headed by Alcaraz, there’s potential, but a lack of grass-court experience. Maybe that’s an opportunity for someone else, like Norrie last year.
I watched the second set between Rune and Peniston less intently, and the former was never under too much pressure, especially when Peniston handed him a break with a double fault.
I watched Alcaraz vs. Lehecka (who himself is only 21) and it was a much easier match-up for Alcaraz, who broke early and backed it up. It wasn’t a complete thrashing, but Lehecka went too hard and fast when he didn’t need to. The consensus was that he was playing the opponent, not the ball. (It was their first meeting.) Alcaraz was only bothered on serve once, and delivered some sizzling shots.
I dipped into Birmingham to watch a second round encounter between Venus Williams and Jelena Ostapenko, or at least until Ostapenko failed to convert match points in the second set. But she did win in the third set, as she should – however many flashes of brilliance the multiple grand slam champion showed.
Back to Queen’s for young gun seeds Lorenzo Musetti (so good to see him come through after noticing his potential at the French a few years ago) and Holger Rune, whose results have got him higher ranked. At first it started off equal, and then, beginning a match of ebbs and flows, Rune’s game dropped off while Musetti’s soared, and he was up 4-1. Rune called on a physio, and it was clear that something was up (later, it emerged he’d probably been gripping the racquet too hard,) but Musetti got distracted, and by the time Rune got back to 4-4, his level had increased and he won the first set.
The second was close, although Rune was frustrating Musetti, and while I’m not sure Musetti was aiming the smash straight at him as much as wanting to hit the ball really hard by this point, he hit the ball at a pace that would make for an impressive serve at Rune at a much closer range. Well. Although there were break points, it was Rune who broke and took his second match point.
Both young men are learning fast on grass. Musetti is a stylish, stylish player who also has power, although he wasn’t as consistent as he needed to be, but Rune had sound tactics, was willing to come forward, could improvise when necessary and also had plenty of power. A bit of a champion’s mentality there too.
Next up, Cameron Norrie (and his sun block) against Sebastian Korda, who, at 22, is relatively old! It soon became obvious that he had too much game, and broke Norrie. I watched the second set much less closely, and at least Norrie did push it into a tiebreak, but he played that poorly, so Korda was through in two sets.
I couldn’t watch Alcaraz vs Dimitrov, however intriguing, the same day, and left it until the Saturday. Dimitrov started poorly, gifting Alcaraz an early break. He settled during the rest of the first set, and started the second really well, but Alcaraz was thereabouts, drew level, but then got broken. Instead of consolidating, Dimitrov handed his opponent a break back, with poor double faults and errors. ‘Muchas gracias’ said the Spaniard and there you go.
There were a few points here and there where Alcaraz showed nerves or grass-court naivete, but mentally he didn’t waver as much as Dimitrov, who seemed to throw it in just when he was showing his experience on grass (having won at Queen’s before.) Three semi finalists between the ages of 20 and 22! The commentators seem to be favouring the lower ranked semi finalists, because their play has been better, while Rune and Alcaraz are still learning how to play on this surface (but learning fast, mark you!)
I beg De Minaur’s pardon, apparently, he’s only 24, but having won through to the semis her before and won a tournament on grass, he’s the more experienced on this surface. Rune started nervily, giving De Minaur a lead, and the Aussie played a tight rather than leaky game, even though Rune began competing more. But the Aussie was better on the grass. What I’ve learned is that Rune has a better tennis IQ and is more of a student of the sport than I thought, so his tactics were improving, but De Minaur did not go away.
Greg Rusedski had been touting Korda as the potential winner, and when you saw things like his serving figures, he did indeed look like the best player in the tournament. But after breaking Alcaraz in the first game, he was very nervy, and got broken back. Alcaraz seemed fully engaged and determined not to be broken from that point on, while Korda just never turned up. Apparently he has got tight and lost against the very best before, and Alcaraz is one of their number already.
Korda gave a few donations, and in the main Alcaraz was solid, occasionally brilliant (devastating forehands) and with great touch. Most of all his champion mentality shone through, generally he was mentally better, because he responds better to pressure, which is one of the reasons he’s top class (and if he wins Queen’s, he could regain world no. 1.) And Korda collapsed here, which is why he’s at his best ranking of 25. [ETA: it later emerged he had a hamstring problem, which probably contributed to the sub par performance.]
So, to the final. General agreement that the two best players in the tournament had got through, not that much discussion about who was favourite, although it seemed to be Alcaraz despite De Minaur’s grass-court experience. I was just hoping that De Minaur would bring it, without being afraid of the reputation (although what had happened when they’d last met over a year ago was interesting) so that it would be a good match. Daniela Hanchukova was in raptures over the state of the grass.
As the players came on, De Minaur got a decent reception, but Alcaraz got cheers, testament to his charisma, which wouldn’t matter as much if it weren’t for his prowess and results. Apparently he is all the kids’ favourites and very good about signing autographs.
It started off promisingly, but the turning point was midway through the first set, when De Minaur got some break points. Alcaraz did not like that, fought back to save them, and went at it in the next game, breaking De Minaur and going on to win the set. Some of his forehands in that set were absolute rockets, but what impressed me most was his mentality, that he was able to pull off the ever improving big serves, the power shots and the attacking forecourt shots when it mattered.
But then he had the trainer on, for some kind of strain, so the second set started off more subdued, before settling down. There were shots from both players that might have been winners against another player, but both moved well. However, De Minaur rather handed the break to Alcaraz, with two double faults in the one game and the last on break point. I thought Alcaraz would take that and run with it, but when he was serving for the match, some slight nerves came in and he was down 0-30. It was going big on the serves and at least one donation from De Minaur that helped him win that one. And fair play, that’s another final he’s won at the first time of asking. He’s not the complete grass court player yet, but rather an all court player with the championship’s mentality. Greg Rusedski made the point that he’s better on grass than Nadal was at the same age, and that if he had won Djokovic and then the French, Alcaraz wouldn’t have come to play at Queen’s, to the detriment of his grass-court game and near future chances at Wimbledon.
Fair enough too that he’s regained the world no. 1 ranking – he won a tournament that he can’t have expected to at the start of the week. Winning Queen’s ‘puts you in the conversation’, although it really is Djokovic who is the favourite and then the rest of the pack. [Edited for one typo 23/12/23.]
