TENNIS: Wimbledon QFs to Fs
Jul. 19th, 2023 08:16 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feather_ghyllIt’s hard to tell when week 2 really starts now that there's play on the middle Sunday, when you can tell the pretenders from the contenders (a MacEnroe quote that he probably made during the fourth round.) Anyway, here’s my round-up of the business end of The Championship.
The only quarter final I watched all the way through on the Tuesday was Swiatek vs. Svitolina. Lots of breaks in the first set, but…Swiatek just collapsed instead of serving the set out. She lost a run of points, and Svitolina, who has been through to the semis here and has been playing so well, said thank you very much and took it 7-5.
They decided to close the roof then and Swiatek got to talk to her mental coach, or rather listen to her, jot down notes, and started better, and again there were breaks, and it was in this set where Svitolina was up 40-0, had the point on her racquet and hit a ‘lazy drop shot’ and let her opponent back in. But I still wasn’t sure what would happen next.
What did happen was a tiebreak, and neither player really got their teeth into it – it was an error by Svitolina at set point that gave it to Swiatek.
Swiatek served first in the third and did so well, but so did Svitolina, and then it was the Ukrainian who broke, and broke again (Anne Keothavong later said Swiatek needed to tweak the forehand some more for grass, but she also needs to work on the second serve; it got her nowhere but trouble. Admittedly, Swiatek was all over Svitolina’s second serve when she wasn’t in a funk because it was predictable and both women are good returners, but…) And on her service games thereafter, the Ukrainian was magnificent.
It both is and isn’t a shocker that the no. 1 women’s seed is out. Grass is still her weakest surface. Obviously, Swiatek was hoping to improve on previous Wimbledon performances, and she did, but she’s a multiple Grand Slam winner, she probably wanted to do better. Meanwhile, motherhood, playing for her country and a new coach urging her to be more aggressive have had a liberating impact on Svitolina.
Jessica Pegula had been getting on with her tournament quietly enough – the no. 4 seed that no-one was talking about after the Big Three (because the Big Three have shared the last five Grand Slams between themselves, and Pegula has only reached Grand Slam quarter finals.) Vondrousova was the Czech player no-one expected to reach this stage and the lowest ranked woman in the quarters (five seeds had actually got through to the last eight!) But she is a Grand Slam finalist and, on paper, has a game for grass, although it had never clicked for her before. The match went back and forth, but Pegula was leading in the third when they decided to close the roof, and Vondrousova transformed (after a confidence-boosting phone call with her husband), winning all the next games on the trot with fabulous play. Surprise semi finalists proving that women’s tennis is still women’s tennis!
On the men’s side, Sinner won his quarter final in four. His prize will be…to face Djokovic because Rublev got the first set with an almighty effort, but then Djokovic did his thing, went up some more gears, and won in four.
I was able to watch both quarter finals on Centre Court on Wednesday. Jabeur was the crowd’s darling, whereas I was supporting Rybakina. It was closely fought in the first set, but veered off unexpectedly, a break to love answered by a break to love. Jabeur was definitely better than any opponent Rybakina had previously faced (granted, it’s hard to tell about Haddad Maia, who had to retire so early.) Tiebreak, and Jabeur was the first to get set point, but Rybakina took it.
Rybakina’s forehand cross court was both predictable, so Jabeur was often anticipating it, but also a hammer, so sometimes it didn’t matter that Jabeur was there. Nonetheless, Jabeur won the second set and after a tussle at the start, broke Rybakina some more to win the third more easily. The commentators pointed out that she’d stood her ground and often outpaced Rybakina, certainly getting more winners. So, she’d stuck to her tactics and successfully executed them.
Sabalenka beat Keys in two sets, having started off better and responded strongly when down in the second set. So, she’s still the top seed, but whether Jabeur will be aided by her last two opponents hitting big, or whether the improvements that brought Sabalenka a Grand Slam are too strong, we’ll see. Sabalenka’s expressions and noises amuse me, but I was yet to watch a whole match of hers at Wimbledon this year.
I don’t think I knew before that Alcaraz and Rune were born six days apart (in fact, Rune is the older. The footage of them playing doubles together as young teens was darling.) I was back to rooting for Alcaraz, although curious to see how they matched up.
Tight first set, where the fact they both knew each other’s patterns was clear, as was their appetite to come in (although Alcaraz’s first lot of drop shots were nopes.) So they went to tiebreak, and at 3-3, Alcaraz played better, reminding us that they may be contemporaries, but Rune was on Centre Court for the first time, while he’s a Grand Slam champion, and has won plenty of other big matches – there’s a difference between being a top 10 player and competing with Djokovic for No. 1.
Alcaraz proved this again in the second set, where he broke Rune and took it. Rune might be able to get to 0-30, but no further on Alcaraz’s service games. After that, Rune’s body language was more often weary and dispirited than scrappy. Entertaining tennis, and Alcaraz was surely delighted to have won in three and indeed to get through to the semis.
Medvedev beat Eubanks in five sets, although the American was two sets up and had a tiebreak in the fourth. This is his best Wimbledon. (True of both of them.) So, for all the talk about the Big Three in women’s tennis, only one made it through, while the top three male seeds did, and Sinner is a better grass-court player than Ruud, the male top 4 seed.
Ladies semi-finals: first ‘the semi-final that no-one expected’, with Svitolina (the crowd’s favourite and the one tipped to win, although she was the only semi-finalist who hadn’t made it through to a Slam final yet) versus the leftie Czech player who’d been injured last year, Marketa Vondrousova, apparently appearing on Centre Court for the first time.
Vondrousova didn’t look flustered to be there, even though the crowd were all for Svitolina. And the big take-out was that the Czech’s variety – Svitolina couldn’t read her serve, was never getting the same ball back and often had to create the pace – was effective. Vondrousova broke late in the set, Svitolina submitted and was down one set.
Which is when I had technical issues. I rejoined the match at 4-0 for Vondrousova (in hindsight, that means I missed four games of the Ukrainian playing badly.) I watched Svitolina fight back, break twice, but at 4-3, she served badly – too many double faults, too many chances for her opponent. Vondrousova was serving for the match at 5-3, and was able to do it. As Navratilova said, name checking Mukkova (as well as the more heralded Kvitova and Kreijikova) (Pliskova should go somewhere where there’s no Wi-Fi), what are they feeding the Czech ladies? (Apparently it’s great coaching in the tennis clubs everywhere, and maybe belief because so many others have done it.)
Tracey Austin proposed that Svitolina was flat because it was one game too many, with the switch of her suddenly being expected to win. Meanwhile, it looked as though Vondrousova would be giggling every time someone told her she was in the Wimbledon final, because she didn’t expect it any more than anyone else did.
I was able to watch all of the next semi, and I’ll be honest, I was rooting for Sabalenka of the, er, privileged geopolitical naivete, mainly because Claire Balding keeps going ON about Ons Jabeur, but a little bit because I tipped Sabalenka at the beginning of the fortnight because she seemed the healthiest of the Big Three, not that that turned out to be an issue.
Jabeur had her game plan, Sabalenka had her big, huge, massive serves (and a little more game than the commentating MacEnroe at first acknowledged.) Still, it was Sabalenka who had a tougher time on her service games – one went over 9 minutes, but she always got out on top – though I agreed with Austin that Jabeur had probably played better in the first set. And so, we had a tiebreak, and Jabeur got the first minibreak, but I think she double faulted and lost it, and Sabalenka stole it (echoes of Jabeur’s QF.)
I thought that lead gave Sabalenka confidence, and then she got a break. MacEnroe gave her the win then and there, while I was more cautious, and, with the full-throated support of the Centre Court crowd, who’d already seen one darling lose that afternoon, Jabeur took it up a notch on her return, hit some backhands down the line and snatched a game point from Sabalenka. Momentum switched, and the Tunisian won game after game, and thus the second set. Jabeur maintained her high level and focus in the third, and got through to the final again.
I knew I’d be supporting Vondrousova, although it’s a big ask. Yes, they’ve both experienced losing a Grand Slam final, but for Jabeur it was here, last year. She’s built up grass-court experience and been a favourite on this surface; she’s also a regular top 10 player, who played like it to beat the no. 3 and 2 seeds. Admittedly, Vondrousova breaks the pattern of her big-hitting four last opponents and has less to lose…it won’t be such a match of contrasts, but more feel and touch will be involved than usual. Svitolina vs. Jabeur was the final the general public would have wanted, in part because of ‘the stories’ (but who would they have supported?) Svitolina vs. Belarussian Sabalenka would have been mighty awkward.
I got to see all of the men’s semi finals. The first was Djokovic v Sinner, and because this was the first Djokovic match I watched all the way through the tournament, I ended up wondering why, among all the stats, they didn’t tell us his average ball bouncing.
Djokovic was dialled in from the start. Meanwhile, the fact that Sinner had got here without facing a top 50 opponent (!) and was facing the defending champion with a decade of wins on this court was clear. He needed to be at his best, but he got broken. He did have a breakback point on his racquet, went the wrong way and didn’t get another chance in the first set. Apart from a game where the umpire got involved, the second set went much like the first.
To his credit, Sinner raised his level of play in the third set, and there were competitive points. He also had been serving first, so there was pressure on Djokovic towards the end of the set, when the crowd (supporting the underdog) were noisy between first and second serves. (This is bad form.) Djokovic got into it a bit, but used it to play better, and beat Sinner in three. The Italian may have improved since last year, but Djokovic is still Djokovic.
I was more intrigued by Alcaraz vs. Medvedev, both through to their first Wimbledon semi, both US Open champions. Medvedev had beaten Alcaraz at Wimbledon, but that was two years ago when he was but a boy, and Alcaraz had beaten him handily the last time they’d played on a different surface, best of three rather than of five, but this year. I was hoping Medvedev would get punished for standing so far back on return, and curious to see Alcaraz respond to the test.
A loose game by Medvedev at 4-4 gave Alcaraz a chance, and he took it, thank you very much. Big serves, big forehands, cheeky drop shots, and by the second set he was serving and volleying because Medvedev was giving him so much court, because despite the toilet break after the first set (which was short because neither player dallies between points), the Russian was stubbornly sticking to his game, and Alcaraz, returning fabulously, was dismantling it. By the time the third set started, it did not look as though Alcaraz was facing the no. 3 player in the world.
But he was, and a heated debate with his coach got Medvedev more focused, and with the help of five breaks, it was a bit more even in the third. Alcaraz seemed caught between two minds on his serve, although he was still returning well and bossing Medvedev on those games. Match point was great, with retrieving from both sides before Alcaraz hit a glorious running passing winner.
Alcaraz’s and his team’s sheer delight was a reminder that this is him getting through to his first Wimbledon final, and even if he did win Queen’s and even if everyone had to mention him as the leader of the chasing pack, they can’t have expected this at the start of the tournament. Hoped, maybe, but there was the shadow of the French Open semi and the lack of experience on grass.
But Alcaraz is a marvel, a sponge who’s learned from every game on the surface, bringing the same fabulous mentality he’s shown everywhere on the big points so that he can play his game, and what a game it is. He outclassed Medvedev for most of the match, and Medvedev is a quality player (though not as good as his ranking on grass, Sinner and Berrettini are better, Nadal and Kyrigos would be better if healthy, Rune and Tsitsipas have better attitudes to the surface.)
Saturday – ladies final
Big build-up as per usual, with nods to the WTA’s fiftieth, a fair enough round-up of the tournament, interviews with the finalists, a windy chat between Leigh, Annabel and Anne K, who all wore skirts – the roof was closed because of the wind. The general consensus was that Jabeur was the favourite, as in expected to win, and obviously the crowd’s favourite. But there were telling clips from Pegula and Svitolina’s post-defeat press conferences about how difficult it was to deal with Vondrousova’s variety.
Jabeur’s story is much more well known. They had to scramble to remind us that Vondrousova had won a silver in Tokyo (which meant she’d lost a final, essentially, but she talked about how she had to use her protected ranking to get in, and possibly another Czech player had to pull out.)
As I said, I was supporting the left-handed Czech, although I thought Jabeur ought to win as she’d played so well, but noting that Vonrousova would be very different to the last four players she’d faced. And for all that the commentators (MacEnroe mainly) talked about the crowd being for her opponent, well, Vondrousova’d had the same thing in her semi under the roof against Svitolina and hadn’t let it phase her. And she’d won her last two matches this year against Jabeur, but Jabeur’s injuries might have been a factor in that, and she’d practised against a left-handed player.
Dream commentary team of Sam Smith, Tracey Austin (such good explanations) and MacEnroe, who isn’t quite as on top of the women’s game as the others, but will admit when the others are right. (All too often, the BBC has a generalist sporty commentator and a former player who has to gently correct them and explain what actually happened in a point.)
Early break to Jabeur, but she failed to convert game points/break points and was level at 4-4 instead of being 4-1 or 5-0 up. Vondrousova shook her nerves off and started playing her game. They weren’t big, pacy shots, but rather slices, and even if I couldn’t always see the spins, the different lengths and heights were visible. Jabeur was not liking it or able to deal with it, and Vondrousova went on a run of five games, winning the first set and breaking.
It was notable how quiet the crowd were. But Jabeur strung together some good points to break back, and we were reminded she’d come back from one set down repeatedly this year. However, Vondrousova returned well (Jabeur’s first serve percentage was simply not high enough) and would not give her a rhythm. Her drop shots worked, her court craft worked, and every time Jabeur looked to be getting a little run of points, there was an error off her racquet. Vondrousova served strongly, then there was a break, and the Czech player rattled off three points, understandably double faulted at 40-0, but won her second championship point with an undeniable volley. Her composure at the end, well, for most of the match, really, was so commendable.
Jabeur was distraught. Of course she was. She’s wanted this one for so long. She’s playing for so many. But like Vondrousova’s six other opponents here this year, she didn’t have an answer for the other’s game. Meanwhile Vondrousova couldn’t quite believe it – the narrative was all about her having been in a cast and coming to support her doubles partner last year, and now she’s going to be celebrating her first wedding anniversary and winning her second tournament, only it’s a Grand Slam. (Yet another new winner! Yet another Czech woman reaching the top!) We’ve known she was talented since the French Open run in 2019, but it’s remarkable that she never managed to get results on the grass before. Remarkable too that she’s the first unseeded player to win Wimbledon, and that she had no sponsorship deal. Just as women’s tennis looked to be settling down into something like predictability…here came the unexpected: Marketa Vondrousova, Wimbledon champion.
The narrative post-match does seem to have been that Jabeur lost it because she wanted it too much, which does a disservice to her opponent, rather.
(I had the men’s doubles on in the background, but they had John Inverdale commentating, and as it was down to three sets, it felt like it was over quite quickly. In fact, doubles barely crossed my consciousness this year.)
Sunday – Gentlemen’s Final
Quite the build-up for ‘the final we all wanted’ to quote MacEnroe, although according to Todd Woodbridge, the former top players thought Djokovic was favourite, believing it was a case of ‘not yet’ for Alcaraz. I was hoping Alcaraz would be able to play his best (i.e. no cramp, everyone pointed out that it was much much cooler than it had been in Paris, so that should be fine) and we’d see, and knowing I’d be supporting him.
The first set went past quickly, and it looked like Djokovic was in no mood to let Alcaraz settle on his court. The wind, the atmosphere (which dissipated as Alcaraz couldn’t convert a break point or win a service game) and, as a commentating Woodbridge astutely observed, Djokovic attacking the 20 year old’s forehand, gave him no chance to settle. Credit to Alcaraz for winning a game so it wasn’t a bagel.
That win helped him win his serve more easily in the second set, making it more competitive, thank goodness. He came in more, eventually deploying the backhand slice, and he started pressing more on Djokovic’s serve, winning baseline exchanges. What struck me the most about that set was Djokovic’s obvious gamesmanship on the serve, which is to say that watching Djokovic bounce the ball ad infinitum is boring. The umpire should have done the obligatory time violation warning much sooner, because Alcaraz had the same wind to deal with and wasn’t delaying to disrupt his opponent/get the perfect ball. And there’s no shot clock between the first and second serves. This tactic stopped any breaks, and Djokovic got a tiebreak, where he’s been supreme (Alcaraz has merely been very good). Minibreak to the Serb defending champion, ooh, minibreak ceded. Umpire called Djokovic out for time violation – I and some in the crowd applauded. Set point (for two sets up) ooh, error. Set point for the world number 1: excellent return winner. Hello, match.
Alcaraz then used his momentum to break Djokovic early in the third. I had to pause the match with the Spaniard at 2-0 up, and resumed watching it hours later. Which meant I got to see the ultimate example of a ‘game within a game’ at 3-1. Deuce. Advantage. Deuce. Rinse and repeat – I don’t remember how many times, but I think both men have won sets more quickly than that game went on. Uncharacteristic errors from Djokovic, no easy serve winners, errors from Alcaraz too. Given the amount of game points and break points and duration, plus it either meant a double break or a shift in momentum, it was epic. Djokovic started looking weary, Alcaraz didn’t. And the Spaniard won!
A quick serve hold, then a total zone-out from Djokovic gave Alcaraz the third set 6-1. Djokovic took an extended toilet break.
He had regrouped, and when Alcaraz tried a far too fancy drop volley and missed, his elder got into a service game and got a break. Alcaraz thumped his bag and the chair holding it, furious with himself. Woodbridge (can he commentate something with Tracey Austin next year, because they’ve been so insightful?) pointed out Djokovic was coming in inside the baseline to rush his opponent i.e. playing more attacking tennis in this set. Djokovic got two breaks in that set, and set up the fifth set he wanted.
Despite having lost the fourth set, Alcaraz recognised it was a ‘one set shoot out’, and on Djokovic’s second service game, played such a dynamic, explosive game that the break was irresistible. He really is a living highlights reel! He continued to serve well, as he had in the second and third sets, giving Djokovic few chances. But in the penultimate game, Djokovic gave him even fewer, meaning Alcaraz had to serve it out to win.
That final game: Alcaraz had a drop shot miss (what happened with his drop shot all match probably deserved a paragraph of its own) and was down 0-15, but he used the drop shot wonderfully to win the next point. There was also an excellent stretch volley that underlined his prowess at the net. But I think this game was about his mentality. At 30-30, there was a strong first serve. Championship point: yet another. Fourth shot from Djokovic into the net. On to the floor falls the new Wimbledon champion.
!!!!
The match had so many twists, but I think the epic game and the way Alcaraz played to break Djokovic in the fifth set were the turning points. In the one, we saw the changing of the guard, although the champion drew on all his experience in the fourth set to pull it to five. But the younger man looked stronger and imposed his will in that long game, and in the fifth set, showed he was ready and able to do what he’d been threatening, and take the crown.
(The royal talk was inevitable with Princess Katherine and four fifths of her family and the actual King of Spain watching, plus how supremely Djokovic has reigned. But having young royals and kids in the players’ boxes, watching someone much closer to their age beat a man old enough to be his father was telling too.)
This is big. It was all about the championship, but whoever won would be world no. 1. Djokovic was chasing 24 (and equalling Federer’s eight Wimbledons). He hadn’t lost on this court since playing Murray a decade ago (Murray was watching. Wonder what his thoughts were.) Alcaraz is already a Grand Slam champion, which along with all the other tournaments he’s won helped, but he beat Ruud. This was Djokovic. This was on a surface he was meant to be learning on. Well, he’s learned fast. He’s unbeaten on grass this year. He’s the first multiple male Slam winner since Wawrinka, thanks to a certain triptych’s dominance. This is a step up – soon enough after that French semi loss that he learned from it without letting it weigh him down, with the challenge of learning how to play grass court tennis to such a degree to distract him.
The Alcaraz team were so happy! Understandably so. Djokovic was gracious (Annabel Croft did well, and when Andrew Castle revealed she’d lost her husband recently, even more respect to her.) Alcaraz was delighted, and that moment where he showed the trophy of on the balcony was majestic. I have been so impressed by his play, he rose to the occasion on the pressure points, and even in the fourth, when Djokovic was turning it around, I was thinking ‘I want this match up in final after final for a little while, please’ because it was the best against the best, and the last time we had that, really, was Djokovic v. Nadal. Surely this is going to rouse the competitor in Djokovic. His calendar Grand Slam isn’t on, but he gets to play at Flushing Meadows…
Fittingly, Alcaraz wore his bucket hat for his interview with Claire Balding after. Never mind Sinner’s Gucci bag, never mind how good Berrettini looked in Boss, that natty hat, especially when also worn by his little brother, was the fashion item, the winner’s crown!
There’s a little less edge to my Wimbledon withdrawal, because I ought to be able to see some of the tennis in north America. [Edited for typos 8/1/23.]
The only quarter final I watched all the way through on the Tuesday was Swiatek vs. Svitolina. Lots of breaks in the first set, but…Swiatek just collapsed instead of serving the set out. She lost a run of points, and Svitolina, who has been through to the semis here and has been playing so well, said thank you very much and took it 7-5.
They decided to close the roof then and Swiatek got to talk to her mental coach, or rather listen to her, jot down notes, and started better, and again there were breaks, and it was in this set where Svitolina was up 40-0, had the point on her racquet and hit a ‘lazy drop shot’ and let her opponent back in. But I still wasn’t sure what would happen next.
What did happen was a tiebreak, and neither player really got their teeth into it – it was an error by Svitolina at set point that gave it to Swiatek.
Swiatek served first in the third and did so well, but so did Svitolina, and then it was the Ukrainian who broke, and broke again (Anne Keothavong later said Swiatek needed to tweak the forehand some more for grass, but she also needs to work on the second serve; it got her nowhere but trouble. Admittedly, Swiatek was all over Svitolina’s second serve when she wasn’t in a funk because it was predictable and both women are good returners, but…) And on her service games thereafter, the Ukrainian was magnificent.
It both is and isn’t a shocker that the no. 1 women’s seed is out. Grass is still her weakest surface. Obviously, Swiatek was hoping to improve on previous Wimbledon performances, and she did, but she’s a multiple Grand Slam winner, she probably wanted to do better. Meanwhile, motherhood, playing for her country and a new coach urging her to be more aggressive have had a liberating impact on Svitolina.
Jessica Pegula had been getting on with her tournament quietly enough – the no. 4 seed that no-one was talking about after the Big Three (because the Big Three have shared the last five Grand Slams between themselves, and Pegula has only reached Grand Slam quarter finals.) Vondrousova was the Czech player no-one expected to reach this stage and the lowest ranked woman in the quarters (five seeds had actually got through to the last eight!) But she is a Grand Slam finalist and, on paper, has a game for grass, although it had never clicked for her before. The match went back and forth, but Pegula was leading in the third when they decided to close the roof, and Vondrousova transformed (after a confidence-boosting phone call with her husband), winning all the next games on the trot with fabulous play. Surprise semi finalists proving that women’s tennis is still women’s tennis!
On the men’s side, Sinner won his quarter final in four. His prize will be…to face Djokovic because Rublev got the first set with an almighty effort, but then Djokovic did his thing, went up some more gears, and won in four.
I was able to watch both quarter finals on Centre Court on Wednesday. Jabeur was the crowd’s darling, whereas I was supporting Rybakina. It was closely fought in the first set, but veered off unexpectedly, a break to love answered by a break to love. Jabeur was definitely better than any opponent Rybakina had previously faced (granted, it’s hard to tell about Haddad Maia, who had to retire so early.) Tiebreak, and Jabeur was the first to get set point, but Rybakina took it.
Rybakina’s forehand cross court was both predictable, so Jabeur was often anticipating it, but also a hammer, so sometimes it didn’t matter that Jabeur was there. Nonetheless, Jabeur won the second set and after a tussle at the start, broke Rybakina some more to win the third more easily. The commentators pointed out that she’d stood her ground and often outpaced Rybakina, certainly getting more winners. So, she’d stuck to her tactics and successfully executed them.
Sabalenka beat Keys in two sets, having started off better and responded strongly when down in the second set. So, she’s still the top seed, but whether Jabeur will be aided by her last two opponents hitting big, or whether the improvements that brought Sabalenka a Grand Slam are too strong, we’ll see. Sabalenka’s expressions and noises amuse me, but I was yet to watch a whole match of hers at Wimbledon this year.
I don’t think I knew before that Alcaraz and Rune were born six days apart (in fact, Rune is the older. The footage of them playing doubles together as young teens was darling.) I was back to rooting for Alcaraz, although curious to see how they matched up.
Tight first set, where the fact they both knew each other’s patterns was clear, as was their appetite to come in (although Alcaraz’s first lot of drop shots were nopes.) So they went to tiebreak, and at 3-3, Alcaraz played better, reminding us that they may be contemporaries, but Rune was on Centre Court for the first time, while he’s a Grand Slam champion, and has won plenty of other big matches – there’s a difference between being a top 10 player and competing with Djokovic for No. 1.
Alcaraz proved this again in the second set, where he broke Rune and took it. Rune might be able to get to 0-30, but no further on Alcaraz’s service games. After that, Rune’s body language was more often weary and dispirited than scrappy. Entertaining tennis, and Alcaraz was surely delighted to have won in three and indeed to get through to the semis.
Medvedev beat Eubanks in five sets, although the American was two sets up and had a tiebreak in the fourth. This is his best Wimbledon. (True of both of them.) So, for all the talk about the Big Three in women’s tennis, only one made it through, while the top three male seeds did, and Sinner is a better grass-court player than Ruud, the male top 4 seed.
Ladies semi-finals: first ‘the semi-final that no-one expected’, with Svitolina (the crowd’s favourite and the one tipped to win, although she was the only semi-finalist who hadn’t made it through to a Slam final yet) versus the leftie Czech player who’d been injured last year, Marketa Vondrousova, apparently appearing on Centre Court for the first time.
Vondrousova didn’t look flustered to be there, even though the crowd were all for Svitolina. And the big take-out was that the Czech’s variety – Svitolina couldn’t read her serve, was never getting the same ball back and often had to create the pace – was effective. Vondrousova broke late in the set, Svitolina submitted and was down one set.
Which is when I had technical issues. I rejoined the match at 4-0 for Vondrousova (in hindsight, that means I missed four games of the Ukrainian playing badly.) I watched Svitolina fight back, break twice, but at 4-3, she served badly – too many double faults, too many chances for her opponent. Vondrousova was serving for the match at 5-3, and was able to do it. As Navratilova said, name checking Mukkova (as well as the more heralded Kvitova and Kreijikova) (Pliskova should go somewhere where there’s no Wi-Fi), what are they feeding the Czech ladies? (Apparently it’s great coaching in the tennis clubs everywhere, and maybe belief because so many others have done it.)
Tracey Austin proposed that Svitolina was flat because it was one game too many, with the switch of her suddenly being expected to win. Meanwhile, it looked as though Vondrousova would be giggling every time someone told her she was in the Wimbledon final, because she didn’t expect it any more than anyone else did.
I was able to watch all of the next semi, and I’ll be honest, I was rooting for Sabalenka of the, er, privileged geopolitical naivete, mainly because Claire Balding keeps going ON about Ons Jabeur, but a little bit because I tipped Sabalenka at the beginning of the fortnight because she seemed the healthiest of the Big Three, not that that turned out to be an issue.
Jabeur had her game plan, Sabalenka had her big, huge, massive serves (and a little more game than the commentating MacEnroe at first acknowledged.) Still, it was Sabalenka who had a tougher time on her service games – one went over 9 minutes, but she always got out on top – though I agreed with Austin that Jabeur had probably played better in the first set. And so, we had a tiebreak, and Jabeur got the first minibreak, but I think she double faulted and lost it, and Sabalenka stole it (echoes of Jabeur’s QF.)
I thought that lead gave Sabalenka confidence, and then she got a break. MacEnroe gave her the win then and there, while I was more cautious, and, with the full-throated support of the Centre Court crowd, who’d already seen one darling lose that afternoon, Jabeur took it up a notch on her return, hit some backhands down the line and snatched a game point from Sabalenka. Momentum switched, and the Tunisian won game after game, and thus the second set. Jabeur maintained her high level and focus in the third, and got through to the final again.
I knew I’d be supporting Vondrousova, although it’s a big ask. Yes, they’ve both experienced losing a Grand Slam final, but for Jabeur it was here, last year. She’s built up grass-court experience and been a favourite on this surface; she’s also a regular top 10 player, who played like it to beat the no. 3 and 2 seeds. Admittedly, Vondrousova breaks the pattern of her big-hitting four last opponents and has less to lose…it won’t be such a match of contrasts, but more feel and touch will be involved than usual. Svitolina vs. Jabeur was the final the general public would have wanted, in part because of ‘the stories’ (but who would they have supported?) Svitolina vs. Belarussian Sabalenka would have been mighty awkward.
I got to see all of the men’s semi finals. The first was Djokovic v Sinner, and because this was the first Djokovic match I watched all the way through the tournament, I ended up wondering why, among all the stats, they didn’t tell us his average ball bouncing.
Djokovic was dialled in from the start. Meanwhile, the fact that Sinner had got here without facing a top 50 opponent (!) and was facing the defending champion with a decade of wins on this court was clear. He needed to be at his best, but he got broken. He did have a breakback point on his racquet, went the wrong way and didn’t get another chance in the first set. Apart from a game where the umpire got involved, the second set went much like the first.
To his credit, Sinner raised his level of play in the third set, and there were competitive points. He also had been serving first, so there was pressure on Djokovic towards the end of the set, when the crowd (supporting the underdog) were noisy between first and second serves. (This is bad form.) Djokovic got into it a bit, but used it to play better, and beat Sinner in three. The Italian may have improved since last year, but Djokovic is still Djokovic.
I was more intrigued by Alcaraz vs. Medvedev, both through to their first Wimbledon semi, both US Open champions. Medvedev had beaten Alcaraz at Wimbledon, but that was two years ago when he was but a boy, and Alcaraz had beaten him handily the last time they’d played on a different surface, best of three rather than of five, but this year. I was hoping Medvedev would get punished for standing so far back on return, and curious to see Alcaraz respond to the test.
A loose game by Medvedev at 4-4 gave Alcaraz a chance, and he took it, thank you very much. Big serves, big forehands, cheeky drop shots, and by the second set he was serving and volleying because Medvedev was giving him so much court, because despite the toilet break after the first set (which was short because neither player dallies between points), the Russian was stubbornly sticking to his game, and Alcaraz, returning fabulously, was dismantling it. By the time the third set started, it did not look as though Alcaraz was facing the no. 3 player in the world.
But he was, and a heated debate with his coach got Medvedev more focused, and with the help of five breaks, it was a bit more even in the third. Alcaraz seemed caught between two minds on his serve, although he was still returning well and bossing Medvedev on those games. Match point was great, with retrieving from both sides before Alcaraz hit a glorious running passing winner.
Alcaraz’s and his team’s sheer delight was a reminder that this is him getting through to his first Wimbledon final, and even if he did win Queen’s and even if everyone had to mention him as the leader of the chasing pack, they can’t have expected this at the start of the tournament. Hoped, maybe, but there was the shadow of the French Open semi and the lack of experience on grass.
But Alcaraz is a marvel, a sponge who’s learned from every game on the surface, bringing the same fabulous mentality he’s shown everywhere on the big points so that he can play his game, and what a game it is. He outclassed Medvedev for most of the match, and Medvedev is a quality player (though not as good as his ranking on grass, Sinner and Berrettini are better, Nadal and Kyrigos would be better if healthy, Rune and Tsitsipas have better attitudes to the surface.)
Saturday – ladies final
Big build-up as per usual, with nods to the WTA’s fiftieth, a fair enough round-up of the tournament, interviews with the finalists, a windy chat between Leigh, Annabel and Anne K, who all wore skirts – the roof was closed because of the wind. The general consensus was that Jabeur was the favourite, as in expected to win, and obviously the crowd’s favourite. But there were telling clips from Pegula and Svitolina’s post-defeat press conferences about how difficult it was to deal with Vondrousova’s variety.
Jabeur’s story is much more well known. They had to scramble to remind us that Vondrousova had won a silver in Tokyo (which meant she’d lost a final, essentially, but she talked about how she had to use her protected ranking to get in, and possibly another Czech player had to pull out.)
As I said, I was supporting the left-handed Czech, although I thought Jabeur ought to win as she’d played so well, but noting that Vonrousova would be very different to the last four players she’d faced. And for all that the commentators (MacEnroe mainly) talked about the crowd being for her opponent, well, Vondrousova’d had the same thing in her semi under the roof against Svitolina and hadn’t let it phase her. And she’d won her last two matches this year against Jabeur, but Jabeur’s injuries might have been a factor in that, and she’d practised against a left-handed player.
Dream commentary team of Sam Smith, Tracey Austin (such good explanations) and MacEnroe, who isn’t quite as on top of the women’s game as the others, but will admit when the others are right. (All too often, the BBC has a generalist sporty commentator and a former player who has to gently correct them and explain what actually happened in a point.)
Early break to Jabeur, but she failed to convert game points/break points and was level at 4-4 instead of being 4-1 or 5-0 up. Vondrousova shook her nerves off and started playing her game. They weren’t big, pacy shots, but rather slices, and even if I couldn’t always see the spins, the different lengths and heights were visible. Jabeur was not liking it or able to deal with it, and Vondrousova went on a run of five games, winning the first set and breaking.
It was notable how quiet the crowd were. But Jabeur strung together some good points to break back, and we were reminded she’d come back from one set down repeatedly this year. However, Vondrousova returned well (Jabeur’s first serve percentage was simply not high enough) and would not give her a rhythm. Her drop shots worked, her court craft worked, and every time Jabeur looked to be getting a little run of points, there was an error off her racquet. Vondrousova served strongly, then there was a break, and the Czech player rattled off three points, understandably double faulted at 40-0, but won her second championship point with an undeniable volley. Her composure at the end, well, for most of the match, really, was so commendable.
Jabeur was distraught. Of course she was. She’s wanted this one for so long. She’s playing for so many. But like Vondrousova’s six other opponents here this year, she didn’t have an answer for the other’s game. Meanwhile Vondrousova couldn’t quite believe it – the narrative was all about her having been in a cast and coming to support her doubles partner last year, and now she’s going to be celebrating her first wedding anniversary and winning her second tournament, only it’s a Grand Slam. (Yet another new winner! Yet another Czech woman reaching the top!) We’ve known she was talented since the French Open run in 2019, but it’s remarkable that she never managed to get results on the grass before. Remarkable too that she’s the first unseeded player to win Wimbledon, and that she had no sponsorship deal. Just as women’s tennis looked to be settling down into something like predictability…here came the unexpected: Marketa Vondrousova, Wimbledon champion.
The narrative post-match does seem to have been that Jabeur lost it because she wanted it too much, which does a disservice to her opponent, rather.
(I had the men’s doubles on in the background, but they had John Inverdale commentating, and as it was down to three sets, it felt like it was over quite quickly. In fact, doubles barely crossed my consciousness this year.)
Sunday – Gentlemen’s Final
Quite the build-up for ‘the final we all wanted’ to quote MacEnroe, although according to Todd Woodbridge, the former top players thought Djokovic was favourite, believing it was a case of ‘not yet’ for Alcaraz. I was hoping Alcaraz would be able to play his best (i.e. no cramp, everyone pointed out that it was much much cooler than it had been in Paris, so that should be fine) and we’d see, and knowing I’d be supporting him.
The first set went past quickly, and it looked like Djokovic was in no mood to let Alcaraz settle on his court. The wind, the atmosphere (which dissipated as Alcaraz couldn’t convert a break point or win a service game) and, as a commentating Woodbridge astutely observed, Djokovic attacking the 20 year old’s forehand, gave him no chance to settle. Credit to Alcaraz for winning a game so it wasn’t a bagel.
That win helped him win his serve more easily in the second set, making it more competitive, thank goodness. He came in more, eventually deploying the backhand slice, and he started pressing more on Djokovic’s serve, winning baseline exchanges. What struck me the most about that set was Djokovic’s obvious gamesmanship on the serve, which is to say that watching Djokovic bounce the ball ad infinitum is boring. The umpire should have done the obligatory time violation warning much sooner, because Alcaraz had the same wind to deal with and wasn’t delaying to disrupt his opponent/get the perfect ball. And there’s no shot clock between the first and second serves. This tactic stopped any breaks, and Djokovic got a tiebreak, where he’s been supreme (Alcaraz has merely been very good). Minibreak to the Serb defending champion, ooh, minibreak ceded. Umpire called Djokovic out for time violation – I and some in the crowd applauded. Set point (for two sets up) ooh, error. Set point for the world number 1: excellent return winner. Hello, match.
Alcaraz then used his momentum to break Djokovic early in the third. I had to pause the match with the Spaniard at 2-0 up, and resumed watching it hours later. Which meant I got to see the ultimate example of a ‘game within a game’ at 3-1. Deuce. Advantage. Deuce. Rinse and repeat – I don’t remember how many times, but I think both men have won sets more quickly than that game went on. Uncharacteristic errors from Djokovic, no easy serve winners, errors from Alcaraz too. Given the amount of game points and break points and duration, plus it either meant a double break or a shift in momentum, it was epic. Djokovic started looking weary, Alcaraz didn’t. And the Spaniard won!
A quick serve hold, then a total zone-out from Djokovic gave Alcaraz the third set 6-1. Djokovic took an extended toilet break.
He had regrouped, and when Alcaraz tried a far too fancy drop volley and missed, his elder got into a service game and got a break. Alcaraz thumped his bag and the chair holding it, furious with himself. Woodbridge (can he commentate something with Tracey Austin next year, because they’ve been so insightful?) pointed out Djokovic was coming in inside the baseline to rush his opponent i.e. playing more attacking tennis in this set. Djokovic got two breaks in that set, and set up the fifth set he wanted.
Despite having lost the fourth set, Alcaraz recognised it was a ‘one set shoot out’, and on Djokovic’s second service game, played such a dynamic, explosive game that the break was irresistible. He really is a living highlights reel! He continued to serve well, as he had in the second and third sets, giving Djokovic few chances. But in the penultimate game, Djokovic gave him even fewer, meaning Alcaraz had to serve it out to win.
That final game: Alcaraz had a drop shot miss (what happened with his drop shot all match probably deserved a paragraph of its own) and was down 0-15, but he used the drop shot wonderfully to win the next point. There was also an excellent stretch volley that underlined his prowess at the net. But I think this game was about his mentality. At 30-30, there was a strong first serve. Championship point: yet another. Fourth shot from Djokovic into the net. On to the floor falls the new Wimbledon champion.
!!!!
The match had so many twists, but I think the epic game and the way Alcaraz played to break Djokovic in the fifth set were the turning points. In the one, we saw the changing of the guard, although the champion drew on all his experience in the fourth set to pull it to five. But the younger man looked stronger and imposed his will in that long game, and in the fifth set, showed he was ready and able to do what he’d been threatening, and take the crown.
(The royal talk was inevitable with Princess Katherine and four fifths of her family and the actual King of Spain watching, plus how supremely Djokovic has reigned. But having young royals and kids in the players’ boxes, watching someone much closer to their age beat a man old enough to be his father was telling too.)
This is big. It was all about the championship, but whoever won would be world no. 1. Djokovic was chasing 24 (and equalling Federer’s eight Wimbledons). He hadn’t lost on this court since playing Murray a decade ago (Murray was watching. Wonder what his thoughts were.) Alcaraz is already a Grand Slam champion, which along with all the other tournaments he’s won helped, but he beat Ruud. This was Djokovic. This was on a surface he was meant to be learning on. Well, he’s learned fast. He’s unbeaten on grass this year. He’s the first multiple male Slam winner since Wawrinka, thanks to a certain triptych’s dominance. This is a step up – soon enough after that French semi loss that he learned from it without letting it weigh him down, with the challenge of learning how to play grass court tennis to such a degree to distract him.
The Alcaraz team were so happy! Understandably so. Djokovic was gracious (Annabel Croft did well, and when Andrew Castle revealed she’d lost her husband recently, even more respect to her.) Alcaraz was delighted, and that moment where he showed the trophy of on the balcony was majestic. I have been so impressed by his play, he rose to the occasion on the pressure points, and even in the fourth, when Djokovic was turning it around, I was thinking ‘I want this match up in final after final for a little while, please’ because it was the best against the best, and the last time we had that, really, was Djokovic v. Nadal. Surely this is going to rouse the competitor in Djokovic. His calendar Grand Slam isn’t on, but he gets to play at Flushing Meadows…
Fittingly, Alcaraz wore his bucket hat for his interview with Claire Balding after. Never mind Sinner’s Gucci bag, never mind how good Berrettini looked in Boss, that natty hat, especially when also worn by his little brother, was the fashion item, the winner’s crown!
There’s a little less edge to my Wimbledon withdrawal, because I ought to be able to see some of the tennis in north America. [Edited for typos 8/1/23.]
