TENNIS: Cincinnati 2023
Aug. 21st, 2023 07:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feather_ghyllI now know Cincinnati is where the second north American Masters are held, the last chance for the serious contenders for the US Open to compete on both tours. It featured some tasty rematches, and you’ll be able to tell who I support from who I chose to watch, but, truly, it ended with something exceptional. I saw a little of a lot of opening matches. For instance, I didn’t mean to, but I watched some of Berrettini vs. Auger-Aliassime and the former still isn’t match hardened, is he?
The first match I watched the whole way through was the second round encounter between Ostapenko (who had beaten Pliskova) and Rybakina who had had a bye. The commentators talked a lot about her shoulder, and it was still taped, although with a flesh-coloured tape with black patterned markings on it, it looked a little like a tattoo.
Anyway, a stiff draw for both. Although Rybakina started out promisingly, there was a game with three double faults in it. There were quite a lot of breaks throughout the first set. Rybakina had three set points in the tiebreak, the last on her serve, but didn’t do enough, and Ostapenko ‘stole’ a set she should have won already.
To her credit, Rybakina was not discouraged, but rather encouraged that it had been so close, broke early and dominated the second set, even if her first serve percentage wasn’t good enough. She gained rhythm in the second and third sets, and, although Ostapenko fought back, Rybakina was consistently better or tidier, underlining the difference between top 20 and top 5 (she’s now ranked and seeded 4 behind Pegula.)
The next day, I chose to watch the third round rematch between Alcaraz and Paul, with the latter having beaten Alcaraz last week, so the world no. 1 would be keen to get his revenge and was in a more positive frame of mind here.
Both players also had to deal with the wind from the beginning, and yet produced entertaining tennis. Paul matched Alcaraz for movement and physicality, limiting the power of some of his go-to shots. A more patient Alcaraz took it to a tiebreak. Mini breaks were exchanged, but Alcaraz won.
Paul must have been disappointed, but plugged away. Alcaraz’s serves were broken, but he usually broke back with ferocity, and had quite a lot of break points. The 5-6 game lasted over fifteen minutes and was a wowzer. Some of Alcaraz’s shots (he had three match points) were scintillating, but Paul managed to repel them and take it to a tiebreak, and I don’t know whether it was feeling that he should have won already, but Alcaraz lost it to love.
To his credit, though, he was intense from the very first game of the third set, and had an early break throughout. There was a long rain delay, and Amazon didn’t seem to have the end of the match available, but I could see that Alcaraz was through to the quarter finals.
I learned Djokovic was playing here, Medvedev was out, and Rybakina, who’d won the first set, but was 5-2 down against Paolina in the second retired.
I watched the quarter final match between the women’s French Open champion (Swiatek) and Wimbledon champion (Vondrousova, who was seeded 10) liveish. In the beginning, it was an attractive match-up, with Swiatek coming in more than usual and doing fine there. Vondrousova got the first break, though and was serving 5-3 and flubbed it out of tension, because Swiatek had got nowhere on her serve up until then. But Vondrousova got another chance to serve it out and failed to take it, and in the tiebreak, Swiatek played like the world no. 1 and defending US Open champion.
Apart from a cluster of sparkling shots, the second set was Swiatek’s. Vondrousova could have won the first set and then it’d have been a different match, and she’s too good to lose a set 6-1, so even if she’s adjusting to life as a Wimbledon champion, I would think it would be better for her tennis if the loss rankled a little.
I watched the Alcaraz vs. Max Purcell quarter final too. The latter has quite a story – I remembered he’d won the men’s doubles at Wimbledon a few years ago, and knew he was a qualifier here. So, he had been out of the world’s 200 at the start of the year, but won three Challengers in India, played WITH A FRACTURED FOOT over the spring, qualified for Toronto, lost in the first round, had quite the journey with his coach to cross the border and get to Cincinnati, meaning he had no practice time, but won the qualifiers and had got through to the quarter finals to face the world no. 1 in his second Masters.
Alcaraz, in his second QF here, was expected to win, and got a break point in the second game, but Purcell fended it off and settled down, offering all kinds of challenges because he was volleying so much. Then Alcaraz showed some frailty and was 15-40 down, which Purcell, an Aussie who looked like he came from Sydney too, took advantage of and was competent enough to take the first set. Mild shock abounded, and Alcaraz he had a puzzle to solve.
However, he adapted and broke early in the second set. The third set looked like it was going the same way, and it was fun to watch. Purcell knows how to position himself to make his volleys easy, but Alcaraz pulled off some great passing shots and some very him dazzlers. Ultimately, he had too much intensity for Purcell.
I chose to watch Sabalenka vs Jabeur, a rematch soon after the latter had lost to the former in Wimbledon, for the contrast in style. Proving that it’s more about the returns on the women’s side, there were a lot of breaks in the first set, but Sabalenka squeaked through.
Jabeur was up a break when she called for a trainer for a foot issue, well, injury, because she was wary of putting her weight on it thereafter. In fairness, the break seemed to help Sabalenka bigtime with her serve, because healthy or not, Jabeur wouldn’t have been able to return a lot of them.
I was more engaged in the Swiatek vs Gauff semi. The former had a 7-0 head to head over the American, but the latter has got a new coaching team. Both players were on it from the first shot, with Swiatek having improved her game, and Gauff had a new, more aggressive mindset and, tactically, was trying to hit her forehand (her weakness) down the line. It meant she got more breaks than usual, although Swiatek usually responded, and Gauff had reason to believe they had plotted a course towards her beating Swiatek (and becoming a Slam champion) even if she couldn’t pull it off this time. But she did pull off a win in the tiebreak. Massive celebrations!
But you have to keep playing at the same level against the world no. 1, who, if anything, upped her intensity, while Gauff’s dropped. Swiatek got an early break and Gauff got nowhere on her serve, although she staved off a double break until the end of the set.
This meant Swiatek was serving first and had scoreboard pressure on her side, but the younger player (who in the main, is very composed and mature for a 19 year old) was remembering her tactics a little more, and kept it all square. Swiatek was coming in, because she was being more aggressive, and I think she won all or practically all of her net points. But Gauff pressed at 3-3, and she stood up to the ensuing barrage from Swiatek to try to get the break back. It took several match points, but Gauff beat the world no. 1 for the first time, backing up her win in Washington and the changes she’s made since a disappointing Wimbledon, or Eastbourne, when she started changing her coaching team.
It’s great to see her developing, because we all saw her promise so young.
Although Sabalenka vs. Muchova was a rematch of the French (where Sabalenka lost), I didn’t watch their semi. Apparently, it went to three sets, and Muchova won, meaning the last two runners-up at the French would be in the finals.
I chose to watch Alcaraz’s semi against Hurcacz, whom he’d beat in Toronto, but the tall Pole was in fine fettle from the start. Known for his serve, he delivered on it and broke Alcaraz in his first service game, and although Alcaraz got break points, Hurcacz pulled off his impressive first serve for every one until even Alcaraz and coach had to smile. However, when the world no. 1 lost his serve again to hand the first set, he (or his coach, who was talking throughout the match) recognised he needed to change something.
So he slowed down his serve and changed his returning position, and though Hurcacz kept his serve, so did Alcaraz, who was also doing his walking showreel thing. It was only towards the end of the set that Alcaraz had a bit of a blip on his serve, and Hurcacz had a match point, which he lost with an error, but one that was coloured by fear of some of Alcaraz’s shots.
The set went to a tiebreak, and though he was a minibreak down, Alcaraz regrouped and was too strong. He was much too strong in the third set, taking advantage the second Hurcacz wobbled on his serve. And there were some very fun net exchanges and some sizzling winners to enjoy. He may have had to go to three sets in all his matches here, but Alcaraz is proving in different ways how good he is.
I watched a replay of the women’s final, which was the first encounter between Gauff (now returning to the top 5) and Muchova (into the top 10 and surrounded by other Czechs.) Really entertaining tennis, because both are good athletes (Gauff may be the better, had been on court for less time and was better able to cope with the heat), Muchova’s game has so much variety it’s a shapeshifter.
I’d been wondering if Gauff would have a letdown after the result of her life, but a commentating Daniela Hanchukova didn’t think so before the match started, and rightly pointed out that the American crowd would be rooting for her loudly. Gauff was all business, and seemed to need less coaching than in the semi, staying aggressive and responding really well as Muchova adapted – serving and volleying more than most women players. But there Gauff’s doubles play stood her in good stead, and she hit quite a few excellent passing shots.
By the end of the first set, Gauff was in the ascendancy and the fact she was back to business the second after she’d celebrated boded well. For the first half of the second set, all the games were going to deuce, but the server found a way to hold. Gauff’s new and improved forehand (due to foot patterns, apparently) stood up to the pressure and then she flipped it right back, and it was Muchova who wilted. Twice. So, when tension came into Gauff’s game the first time she served for the match, where she failed to convert three match points, she knew there was another chance coming. To her credit, was bossing the next return game when they had to pause at 0-30 because a spectator needed medical attention on the first really hot and humid day of the tournament.
This helped Muchova, who got her serve together, but was too hot and bothered to celebrate her hold. Quite a striking image of the ice bag on her head at the sitdown. Gauff rose to serve for the match again, and this time she was less tight and found big, aggressive serves. Boom – she won the biggest tournament of her life, on home ‘soil’. Her attitude in this final was commendable - I kept wondering if she was enjoying the challenge that Muchova was offering her - she stayed solid no matter what was being thrown at her.
Due credit to Muchova, although you probably need a connoisseur’s eye/knowledgeable commentator to appreciate some of what she’s doing. If she can keep healthy (and win earlier matches more quickly?) she can compete at these heights. They (and Pegula?) have done enough to be ‘in the conversation’ along with your Swiatek, Sabalenka and Rybakina (if the latter’s healthy.) And Vondrousova reminds us (as does the memory of Raducanu) that you never know with women’s tennis.
I saved the men’s final – Djokovic holding his side of the bargain, having won in two sets throughout his run – for the morning after, not expecting it to take up all of my morning and beyond in a match that will go down as a classic contest.
Both finalists were playing at a high level from the outset. Where was this service from Alcaraz the rest of the tournament? I suppose facing Djokovic must have made him find it. High quality probing of each other’s strengths and weaknesses ensued and then Djokovic raised his game a level and broke Alacraz to love. But the world no. 1 responded immediately by breaking back and started playing the better tennis of the two, winning the longer rallies. In fact, it became apparent that Djokovic was struggling in the heat, which, thanks to the humidity, was rising. Alcaraz had some advantage in that he was used to playing at this time of day with the shift between light and shade, if not at this heat (but he grew up in Spain!) Djokovic had been playing at night with its cooler temperatures. Alcaraz broke and won the first set, and off Djokovic went to change.
He was clearly physically struggling, while Alcaraz, despite the break just after he’d gained momentum, looked fine, and then Djokovic produced three double faults consecutively!!! He basically handed a break to Alcaraz on a platter. He called on the physio and doctor, and with the referee on, looked as though he might well retire. Except he didn’t, he took his pills, Alcaraz consolidated, and at 4-2 looked as if he was two service holds away from beating an unwell Djokovic (never mind what happened at the French.)
But around this point, I paused the match to make myself a coffee and made the mistake of noting how long the match had yet to go (it’s the disadvantage of watching a replay, although its sometimes and advantage) and realised it was going to be a looooong three setter. So, I wasn’t as shocked as everyone else when Alcaraz played the loosest game of the set instead of holding his serve with relative ease. A subpar Djokovic is still Very Dangerous. Back to terms, and although Alcaraz regrouped, Djokovic stopped wilting physically and it went to a tiebreak, which was close enough that Alcaraz had a match point, but it was on his opponent’s serve, and the reigning French and Australian champion refused to let him into that point. Djokovic won the tiebreak and set. He went off to change outfits again, while Alcaraz vented his frustration, which was understandable because he’d just had to keep his serve to have won already, except he did so on his playing hand, and, to Djokovic’s bemusement when he returned, needed treatment on it.
What followed was longer than some matches and was full of twists and reversals and magnificent tennis. In a long game with a lot of break points, Djokovic’s insistence was rewarded with a break. Yet, when Djokovic had to serve it out, he showed his nerves with two double faults. And then it was break points vs. match points, and one of the latter two was saved by an outrageous passing shot where Alcaraz went down the line so that the ball landed behind Djokovic, thanks to amazing movement. He was doing ludicrous split steps throughout the match.
Alcaraz was back to playing brilliantly – serving and volleying himself or unleashing ground stroke winners, although Djokovic was matching him more at the back of the court – and, almost needless to state, he was producing those dropshots of his. And so we went to another tiebreak, where Djokovic kept having minibreaks, and then match points (did Alcaraz save one of these with a booming forehand?) until finally, finally after breaking the Cincinnati match length record, beating Alcaraz’s longest three-set match record and possibly even Djokovic’s, the Serb won, and fell to the ground, which was deserved.
It was quite something (the tennis world is already salivating at the thought of them meeting again in New York.) Alcaraz will rue that loose service game, and the commentators quibbled with some shot selection – he went for something too big/cute/Hollywood when a less flashy shot was more likely to win the point, but he usually wins with those flashy shots. Djokovic’s comeback from physically struggling (the speeches were good, but he really should have thanked the doc and trainer!) was amazing, and the ability of both to make changes to their game in response to what the other was doing was so impressive.
That loss will hurt Alcaraz, as it should, while Djokovic will savour the win. It means that the seeding is less relevant at the US Open. It means that the head to head is two all. It means that the men’s game has a very, very exciting rivalry right now, with a young star who can compete with one of the greats, who had just established himself as ‘the GOAT’.
(I didn’t love the winner’s trophy, though.)
The first match I watched the whole way through was the second round encounter between Ostapenko (who had beaten Pliskova) and Rybakina who had had a bye. The commentators talked a lot about her shoulder, and it was still taped, although with a flesh-coloured tape with black patterned markings on it, it looked a little like a tattoo.
Anyway, a stiff draw for both. Although Rybakina started out promisingly, there was a game with three double faults in it. There were quite a lot of breaks throughout the first set. Rybakina had three set points in the tiebreak, the last on her serve, but didn’t do enough, and Ostapenko ‘stole’ a set she should have won already.
To her credit, Rybakina was not discouraged, but rather encouraged that it had been so close, broke early and dominated the second set, even if her first serve percentage wasn’t good enough. She gained rhythm in the second and third sets, and, although Ostapenko fought back, Rybakina was consistently better or tidier, underlining the difference between top 20 and top 5 (she’s now ranked and seeded 4 behind Pegula.)
The next day, I chose to watch the third round rematch between Alcaraz and Paul, with the latter having beaten Alcaraz last week, so the world no. 1 would be keen to get his revenge and was in a more positive frame of mind here.
Both players also had to deal with the wind from the beginning, and yet produced entertaining tennis. Paul matched Alcaraz for movement and physicality, limiting the power of some of his go-to shots. A more patient Alcaraz took it to a tiebreak. Mini breaks were exchanged, but Alcaraz won.
Paul must have been disappointed, but plugged away. Alcaraz’s serves were broken, but he usually broke back with ferocity, and had quite a lot of break points. The 5-6 game lasted over fifteen minutes and was a wowzer. Some of Alcaraz’s shots (he had three match points) were scintillating, but Paul managed to repel them and take it to a tiebreak, and I don’t know whether it was feeling that he should have won already, but Alcaraz lost it to love.
To his credit, though, he was intense from the very first game of the third set, and had an early break throughout. There was a long rain delay, and Amazon didn’t seem to have the end of the match available, but I could see that Alcaraz was through to the quarter finals.
I learned Djokovic was playing here, Medvedev was out, and Rybakina, who’d won the first set, but was 5-2 down against Paolina in the second retired.
I watched the quarter final match between the women’s French Open champion (Swiatek) and Wimbledon champion (Vondrousova, who was seeded 10) liveish. In the beginning, it was an attractive match-up, with Swiatek coming in more than usual and doing fine there. Vondrousova got the first break, though and was serving 5-3 and flubbed it out of tension, because Swiatek had got nowhere on her serve up until then. But Vondrousova got another chance to serve it out and failed to take it, and in the tiebreak, Swiatek played like the world no. 1 and defending US Open champion.
Apart from a cluster of sparkling shots, the second set was Swiatek’s. Vondrousova could have won the first set and then it’d have been a different match, and she’s too good to lose a set 6-1, so even if she’s adjusting to life as a Wimbledon champion, I would think it would be better for her tennis if the loss rankled a little.
I watched the Alcaraz vs. Max Purcell quarter final too. The latter has quite a story – I remembered he’d won the men’s doubles at Wimbledon a few years ago, and knew he was a qualifier here. So, he had been out of the world’s 200 at the start of the year, but won three Challengers in India, played WITH A FRACTURED FOOT over the spring, qualified for Toronto, lost in the first round, had quite the journey with his coach to cross the border and get to Cincinnati, meaning he had no practice time, but won the qualifiers and had got through to the quarter finals to face the world no. 1 in his second Masters.
Alcaraz, in his second QF here, was expected to win, and got a break point in the second game, but Purcell fended it off and settled down, offering all kinds of challenges because he was volleying so much. Then Alcaraz showed some frailty and was 15-40 down, which Purcell, an Aussie who looked like he came from Sydney too, took advantage of and was competent enough to take the first set. Mild shock abounded, and Alcaraz he had a puzzle to solve.
However, he adapted and broke early in the second set. The third set looked like it was going the same way, and it was fun to watch. Purcell knows how to position himself to make his volleys easy, but Alcaraz pulled off some great passing shots and some very him dazzlers. Ultimately, he had too much intensity for Purcell.
I chose to watch Sabalenka vs Jabeur, a rematch soon after the latter had lost to the former in Wimbledon, for the contrast in style. Proving that it’s more about the returns on the women’s side, there were a lot of breaks in the first set, but Sabalenka squeaked through.
Jabeur was up a break when she called for a trainer for a foot issue, well, injury, because she was wary of putting her weight on it thereafter. In fairness, the break seemed to help Sabalenka bigtime with her serve, because healthy or not, Jabeur wouldn’t have been able to return a lot of them.
I was more engaged in the Swiatek vs Gauff semi. The former had a 7-0 head to head over the American, but the latter has got a new coaching team. Both players were on it from the first shot, with Swiatek having improved her game, and Gauff had a new, more aggressive mindset and, tactically, was trying to hit her forehand (her weakness) down the line. It meant she got more breaks than usual, although Swiatek usually responded, and Gauff had reason to believe they had plotted a course towards her beating Swiatek (and becoming a Slam champion) even if she couldn’t pull it off this time. But she did pull off a win in the tiebreak. Massive celebrations!
But you have to keep playing at the same level against the world no. 1, who, if anything, upped her intensity, while Gauff’s dropped. Swiatek got an early break and Gauff got nowhere on her serve, although she staved off a double break until the end of the set.
This meant Swiatek was serving first and had scoreboard pressure on her side, but the younger player (who in the main, is very composed and mature for a 19 year old) was remembering her tactics a little more, and kept it all square. Swiatek was coming in, because she was being more aggressive, and I think she won all or practically all of her net points. But Gauff pressed at 3-3, and she stood up to the ensuing barrage from Swiatek to try to get the break back. It took several match points, but Gauff beat the world no. 1 for the first time, backing up her win in Washington and the changes she’s made since a disappointing Wimbledon, or Eastbourne, when she started changing her coaching team.
It’s great to see her developing, because we all saw her promise so young.
Although Sabalenka vs. Muchova was a rematch of the French (where Sabalenka lost), I didn’t watch their semi. Apparently, it went to three sets, and Muchova won, meaning the last two runners-up at the French would be in the finals.
I chose to watch Alcaraz’s semi against Hurcacz, whom he’d beat in Toronto, but the tall Pole was in fine fettle from the start. Known for his serve, he delivered on it and broke Alcaraz in his first service game, and although Alcaraz got break points, Hurcacz pulled off his impressive first serve for every one until even Alcaraz and coach had to smile. However, when the world no. 1 lost his serve again to hand the first set, he (or his coach, who was talking throughout the match) recognised he needed to change something.
So he slowed down his serve and changed his returning position, and though Hurcacz kept his serve, so did Alcaraz, who was also doing his walking showreel thing. It was only towards the end of the set that Alcaraz had a bit of a blip on his serve, and Hurcacz had a match point, which he lost with an error, but one that was coloured by fear of some of Alcaraz’s shots.
The set went to a tiebreak, and though he was a minibreak down, Alcaraz regrouped and was too strong. He was much too strong in the third set, taking advantage the second Hurcacz wobbled on his serve. And there were some very fun net exchanges and some sizzling winners to enjoy. He may have had to go to three sets in all his matches here, but Alcaraz is proving in different ways how good he is.
I watched a replay of the women’s final, which was the first encounter between Gauff (now returning to the top 5) and Muchova (into the top 10 and surrounded by other Czechs.) Really entertaining tennis, because both are good athletes (Gauff may be the better, had been on court for less time and was better able to cope with the heat), Muchova’s game has so much variety it’s a shapeshifter.
I’d been wondering if Gauff would have a letdown after the result of her life, but a commentating Daniela Hanchukova didn’t think so before the match started, and rightly pointed out that the American crowd would be rooting for her loudly. Gauff was all business, and seemed to need less coaching than in the semi, staying aggressive and responding really well as Muchova adapted – serving and volleying more than most women players. But there Gauff’s doubles play stood her in good stead, and she hit quite a few excellent passing shots.
By the end of the first set, Gauff was in the ascendancy and the fact she was back to business the second after she’d celebrated boded well. For the first half of the second set, all the games were going to deuce, but the server found a way to hold. Gauff’s new and improved forehand (due to foot patterns, apparently) stood up to the pressure and then she flipped it right back, and it was Muchova who wilted. Twice. So, when tension came into Gauff’s game the first time she served for the match, where she failed to convert three match points, she knew there was another chance coming. To her credit, was bossing the next return game when they had to pause at 0-30 because a spectator needed medical attention on the first really hot and humid day of the tournament.
This helped Muchova, who got her serve together, but was too hot and bothered to celebrate her hold. Quite a striking image of the ice bag on her head at the sitdown. Gauff rose to serve for the match again, and this time she was less tight and found big, aggressive serves. Boom – she won the biggest tournament of her life, on home ‘soil’. Her attitude in this final was commendable - I kept wondering if she was enjoying the challenge that Muchova was offering her - she stayed solid no matter what was being thrown at her.
Due credit to Muchova, although you probably need a connoisseur’s eye/knowledgeable commentator to appreciate some of what she’s doing. If she can keep healthy (and win earlier matches more quickly?) she can compete at these heights. They (and Pegula?) have done enough to be ‘in the conversation’ along with your Swiatek, Sabalenka and Rybakina (if the latter’s healthy.) And Vondrousova reminds us (as does the memory of Raducanu) that you never know with women’s tennis.
I saved the men’s final – Djokovic holding his side of the bargain, having won in two sets throughout his run – for the morning after, not expecting it to take up all of my morning and beyond in a match that will go down as a classic contest.
Both finalists were playing at a high level from the outset. Where was this service from Alcaraz the rest of the tournament? I suppose facing Djokovic must have made him find it. High quality probing of each other’s strengths and weaknesses ensued and then Djokovic raised his game a level and broke Alacraz to love. But the world no. 1 responded immediately by breaking back and started playing the better tennis of the two, winning the longer rallies. In fact, it became apparent that Djokovic was struggling in the heat, which, thanks to the humidity, was rising. Alcaraz had some advantage in that he was used to playing at this time of day with the shift between light and shade, if not at this heat (but he grew up in Spain!) Djokovic had been playing at night with its cooler temperatures. Alcaraz broke and won the first set, and off Djokovic went to change.
He was clearly physically struggling, while Alcaraz, despite the break just after he’d gained momentum, looked fine, and then Djokovic produced three double faults consecutively!!! He basically handed a break to Alcaraz on a platter. He called on the physio and doctor, and with the referee on, looked as though he might well retire. Except he didn’t, he took his pills, Alcaraz consolidated, and at 4-2 looked as if he was two service holds away from beating an unwell Djokovic (never mind what happened at the French.)
But around this point, I paused the match to make myself a coffee and made the mistake of noting how long the match had yet to go (it’s the disadvantage of watching a replay, although its sometimes and advantage) and realised it was going to be a looooong three setter. So, I wasn’t as shocked as everyone else when Alcaraz played the loosest game of the set instead of holding his serve with relative ease. A subpar Djokovic is still Very Dangerous. Back to terms, and although Alcaraz regrouped, Djokovic stopped wilting physically and it went to a tiebreak, which was close enough that Alcaraz had a match point, but it was on his opponent’s serve, and the reigning French and Australian champion refused to let him into that point. Djokovic won the tiebreak and set. He went off to change outfits again, while Alcaraz vented his frustration, which was understandable because he’d just had to keep his serve to have won already, except he did so on his playing hand, and, to Djokovic’s bemusement when he returned, needed treatment on it.
What followed was longer than some matches and was full of twists and reversals and magnificent tennis. In a long game with a lot of break points, Djokovic’s insistence was rewarded with a break. Yet, when Djokovic had to serve it out, he showed his nerves with two double faults. And then it was break points vs. match points, and one of the latter two was saved by an outrageous passing shot where Alcaraz went down the line so that the ball landed behind Djokovic, thanks to amazing movement. He was doing ludicrous split steps throughout the match.
Alcaraz was back to playing brilliantly – serving and volleying himself or unleashing ground stroke winners, although Djokovic was matching him more at the back of the court – and, almost needless to state, he was producing those dropshots of his. And so we went to another tiebreak, where Djokovic kept having minibreaks, and then match points (did Alcaraz save one of these with a booming forehand?) until finally, finally after breaking the Cincinnati match length record, beating Alcaraz’s longest three-set match record and possibly even Djokovic’s, the Serb won, and fell to the ground, which was deserved.
It was quite something (the tennis world is already salivating at the thought of them meeting again in New York.) Alcaraz will rue that loose service game, and the commentators quibbled with some shot selection – he went for something too big/cute/Hollywood when a less flashy shot was more likely to win the point, but he usually wins with those flashy shots. Djokovic’s comeback from physically struggling (the speeches were good, but he really should have thanked the doc and trainer!) was amazing, and the ability of both to make changes to their game in response to what the other was doing was so impressive.
That loss will hurt Alcaraz, as it should, while Djokovic will savour the win. It means that the seeding is less relevant at the US Open. It means that the head to head is two all. It means that the men’s game has a very, very exciting rivalry right now, with a young star who can compete with one of the greats, who had just established himself as ‘the GOAT’.
(I didn’t love the winner’s trophy, though.)
