![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feather_ghyllNearly there, and this is helping with the withdrawal.
Day eleven
Women’s semi-finals: first on court were Sabalenka, the female tennis player I’ve followed most closely at this Wimbledon, and Anisimova, on Centre Court for the first time this year. In all the build-up, perhaps the most interesting detail was that Anisimova was ahead in their head-to-head, although they hadn’t played on grass previously. So, she just had to tell herself it was any other match against Sabalenka and she had a chance. A couple more interesting stats were that her backhand speed matched Sinner’s and her average return speed was higher than even that of the men left in the draw.
I still expected Sabalenka to find a way – hadn’t she met all the tests that had come her way here? – but found I was rooting for Anisimova. And it soon became apparent that she could handle the pace and power of Sabalenka’s ball and match it. Big hitting, but engrossingly so.
There was an extended break because a spectator had fallen ill. Sabalenka passed on one of her water bottles. A break, a break back, and then Sabalenka double faulted on Anisimova’s set point and that was all the pressure of her opponent’s return.
The second set went to serve, although Sabalenka had now adjusted her returning position, but it felt as though Anisimova talked herself into getting broken via her negative body language at 3-3. Sabalenka would not let go, and started the third set with a break. But Anisimova reset, returned well, maybe Sabalenka hit too many balls towards the world-class backhand, and got back to serve.
There was an increasing edge to the match as it became a grunt off (Sabalenka is used to being the loudest grunter!) The top seed was not impressed by two breaches of etiquette from Anisimova - talking before a ball had bounced twice, and then not apologising for a let cord, although the latter was because she was so caught up in relieved celebration having won a game point. But her real problem was the tennis, as Anisimova won a break. Could she serve it out? Er, no, she got nervous, but she still had a scoreboard lead in the next game, played much more freely and won the game, set and match, getting through to her first grand slam final and realising the potential she’s always had.
Could the second semi-final compete with that? Well, no. Swiatek brought all the intensity and the better movement and greater confidence on grass that had got her here and raced ahead to a 3-0 lead. Then there was another enforced pause because of an unwell spectator – hottest Wimbledon ever! Bencic got a game on the board, but Swiatek barely dropped her level, and a few points aside, Bencic didn’t have much of a say about it: 6-2. In the next set, there were fewer errors from Swiatek, and double faults aside, these were ‘good errors’, because she was hitting in the right direction and just missing slightly. I soon started worrying that Bencic would get bagelled, and lo, she did. Swiatek wasn’t even playing out of her mind, she was just doing everything well: serve, return, good backhands, a willingness to move forward.
The general consensus is that she’s the favourite for the final, having finally worked out what she needs to do on the surface and having never lost a grand slam final. Anisimova has a chance, of course, with more weapons than Bencic. As for the losers, Bencic didn’t do much wrong, she just got outplayed and is now back in the top 20. Sabalenka has lost another tough three setter at the latter end of a slam to an American. She’s never got beyond a semi-final at Wimbledon, and is going to be defending her US Open win as still the no. 1 seed, because she’s the most consistently good player, but there will now be increasing stress.
I then watched the mixed doubles finals, featuring Joe Salisbury (British, has won doubles slams, but never here) and Luisa Stefani (Brazilian, good doubles player) against Katerina Siniakova (Czech, women’s no. 1 doubles player, multiple slams, but not in mixed doubles, though she is a reigning Olympic champion) and Sim Verbeek (Dutch, smiley, quite new on the circuit.) This was the last traditional mixed doubles final before the US Open experiment.
Everyone kept their serve, yes, even the women, and they got to the tiebreak, where Salisbury dropped a couple of points, and the Czech-Dutch team took advantage. It featured some excellent points. In the second set, the British-Brazilian pair changed tactics, using Stefani’s lob to push the others back and take control of the net, but it still ended up going to a tiebreak, and it was the other two who found the right shots and won. (The US Open could at least invite the doubles champions of the last three or four slams to show off their angles.)
Day twelve
This really was men’s semi-finals day, but the coverage I watched started with one women’s doubles semi-final match and closed with another. No double for Siniakova here this year.
But first on Centre, Alcaraz vs Fritz, with the defending champion the favourite. The Beeb had a commentating coup (or would have if he hadn’t been at the French) in Agassi, who definitely bought a higher level of analysis.
Fritz got broken because he hadn’t quite settled, and
Alcaraz got to win his first point with a drop shot. The
latter was serving well, and though Fritz started serving
and playing better, the first set felt done before it had begun. Admittedly, two different people fell ill in the same service game for Alcaraz (he’d also have to deal with two champagne corks being popped in another service game.) There had been talk of Fritz having to play a more high-risk version of his game to keep up with Alcaraz, who had been targeting the Fritz forehand. Maybe he strayed from that, because when Fritz got a 0-30 chance at the end of the second, he took it, broke, and drew level.
Except they weren’t level. Alcaraz has more touch, deployed the drop shot supremely and returned to attacking the forehand, while being pretty tough on his serves (not that Fritz wasn’t, but some of Alcaraz’s second serves were remarkable) and demanding he broke when he had a sniff of a chance. He broke twice in the third set. Fritz was more stable in the fourth, and although Alcaraz was trying to break him, couldn’t quite. It went to a tiebreak (which I had to watch in fits and starts), with Alcaraz getting the first minibreak because Fritz thought he could play cat and mouse (with Alcaraz? No.) He regained it by his baseline play, but then Alcaraz found some more shots that had Agassi basically giggling and then explaining how tough they were. Alcaraz won in four and is through to his third final here, with the chance of a hattrick (and doing the French-Wimbledon double twice.)
He talked about nerves in the on-court interview, but they weren’t really visible. There were a handful of points that he could have won had he gone for less of a glory shot, but he’s playing at a much higher level this second week. Fritz has improved from last year, and was a very worthy semi finalist, it’s just that (as in the US Open final), there’s a gulf between him, in and out of the top five these days, and the top two.
The next two men came on to a quiet crowd and atmosphere. Pros had given Sinner the edge, I was aware that you could never discount Djokovic, but nobody was sure how his fall towards the end of the quarters would affect him. After both had held serve, we started getting an answer. Sinner was on it, Djokovic less so, making errors, playing a loose game, Sinner capitalised, then rapidly consolidated, and it never felt as though the set was in doubt after that.
More people had returned to their seats, but although he was serving well, Djokovic’s play was erratic (for him), while Sinner was doing pretty much everything well. Djokovic was serve volleying, but in more of an ‘I can’t cope with Sinner in the baseline rallies today’ way than Alcaraz’s ‘and this is another way I can beat you’ approach when he served and volleyed against Fritz. Suddenly, Djokovic was two sets down. He got the trainer on to treat his abductor, which seemed to suggest that that fall had left its mark.
And then suddenly Djokovic was the one pressing, and Sinner looked a little more human. Djokovic was close to two breaks, which would have likely meant the set, but Sinner got back into it, won his service game and was back to his high level. He broke, it was back to terms, Djokovic wasn’t running for too many balls, Sinner clocked it, broke and Djokovic was going through the motions towards the end there. He was clearly hampered. Serve aside, his game – not least his movement – wasn’t there. Meanwhile, Sinner was moving better than he ever has at grass, displaying some touch, and has beaten Djokovic again, as he has since the 2023 Davis Cup, as he did in Paris.
They kept talking about all the times we’ve seen Djokovic turn things around, but that was a bit of the point, really. He’s 38, this was his twentieth Wimbledon. As he finds it harder to rely on his body, as he has more niggles and outright injuries, Sinner and Alcaraz are growing stronger and more experienced. Admittedly, my mind was also playing ‘what if…’ as to Dimitrov – would he have beaten Shelton? Would either of them have beaten Djokovic hampered like this?
But instead of a repeat of last year’s final here, we have a repeat of the French Open final. Sinner will want revenge from a tough loss, but Alcaraz currently has him beat and is the better grass-court player. Tennis has got the final it really wanted, as we settle in with the current rivalry. I think the Beeb would have liked a Raducanu vs. Kartal final (I’m chortling as I type this.) The tennis world would have fancied Sabalenka vs. Swiatek, even if nobody expected that final on grass until this fortnight. But if Anisimova backs this up, and why shouldn’t she, the women’s final is pretty good. American women’s tennis is in a great place as it’s produced four different slam finalists in the last 12 months.
Day eleven
Women’s semi-finals: first on court were Sabalenka, the female tennis player I’ve followed most closely at this Wimbledon, and Anisimova, on Centre Court for the first time this year. In all the build-up, perhaps the most interesting detail was that Anisimova was ahead in their head-to-head, although they hadn’t played on grass previously. So, she just had to tell herself it was any other match against Sabalenka and she had a chance. A couple more interesting stats were that her backhand speed matched Sinner’s and her average return speed was higher than even that of the men left in the draw.
I still expected Sabalenka to find a way – hadn’t she met all the tests that had come her way here? – but found I was rooting for Anisimova. And it soon became apparent that she could handle the pace and power of Sabalenka’s ball and match it. Big hitting, but engrossingly so.
There was an extended break because a spectator had fallen ill. Sabalenka passed on one of her water bottles. A break, a break back, and then Sabalenka double faulted on Anisimova’s set point and that was all the pressure of her opponent’s return.
The second set went to serve, although Sabalenka had now adjusted her returning position, but it felt as though Anisimova talked herself into getting broken via her negative body language at 3-3. Sabalenka would not let go, and started the third set with a break. But Anisimova reset, returned well, maybe Sabalenka hit too many balls towards the world-class backhand, and got back to serve.
There was an increasing edge to the match as it became a grunt off (Sabalenka is used to being the loudest grunter!) The top seed was not impressed by two breaches of etiquette from Anisimova - talking before a ball had bounced twice, and then not apologising for a let cord, although the latter was because she was so caught up in relieved celebration having won a game point. But her real problem was the tennis, as Anisimova won a break. Could she serve it out? Er, no, she got nervous, but she still had a scoreboard lead in the next game, played much more freely and won the game, set and match, getting through to her first grand slam final and realising the potential she’s always had.
Could the second semi-final compete with that? Well, no. Swiatek brought all the intensity and the better movement and greater confidence on grass that had got her here and raced ahead to a 3-0 lead. Then there was another enforced pause because of an unwell spectator – hottest Wimbledon ever! Bencic got a game on the board, but Swiatek barely dropped her level, and a few points aside, Bencic didn’t have much of a say about it: 6-2. In the next set, there were fewer errors from Swiatek, and double faults aside, these were ‘good errors’, because she was hitting in the right direction and just missing slightly. I soon started worrying that Bencic would get bagelled, and lo, she did. Swiatek wasn’t even playing out of her mind, she was just doing everything well: serve, return, good backhands, a willingness to move forward.
The general consensus is that she’s the favourite for the final, having finally worked out what she needs to do on the surface and having never lost a grand slam final. Anisimova has a chance, of course, with more weapons than Bencic. As for the losers, Bencic didn’t do much wrong, she just got outplayed and is now back in the top 20. Sabalenka has lost another tough three setter at the latter end of a slam to an American. She’s never got beyond a semi-final at Wimbledon, and is going to be defending her US Open win as still the no. 1 seed, because she’s the most consistently good player, but there will now be increasing stress.
I then watched the mixed doubles finals, featuring Joe Salisbury (British, has won doubles slams, but never here) and Luisa Stefani (Brazilian, good doubles player) against Katerina Siniakova (Czech, women’s no. 1 doubles player, multiple slams, but not in mixed doubles, though she is a reigning Olympic champion) and Sim Verbeek (Dutch, smiley, quite new on the circuit.) This was the last traditional mixed doubles final before the US Open experiment.
Everyone kept their serve, yes, even the women, and they got to the tiebreak, where Salisbury dropped a couple of points, and the Czech-Dutch team took advantage. It featured some excellent points. In the second set, the British-Brazilian pair changed tactics, using Stefani’s lob to push the others back and take control of the net, but it still ended up going to a tiebreak, and it was the other two who found the right shots and won. (The US Open could at least invite the doubles champions of the last three or four slams to show off their angles.)
Day twelve
This really was men’s semi-finals day, but the coverage I watched started with one women’s doubles semi-final match and closed with another. No double for Siniakova here this year.
But first on Centre, Alcaraz vs Fritz, with the defending champion the favourite. The Beeb had a commentating coup (or would have if he hadn’t been at the French) in Agassi, who definitely bought a higher level of analysis.
Fritz got broken because he hadn’t quite settled, and
Alcaraz got to win his first point with a drop shot. The
latter was serving well, and though Fritz started serving
and playing better, the first set felt done before it had begun. Admittedly, two different people fell ill in the same service game for Alcaraz (he’d also have to deal with two champagne corks being popped in another service game.) There had been talk of Fritz having to play a more high-risk version of his game to keep up with Alcaraz, who had been targeting the Fritz forehand. Maybe he strayed from that, because when Fritz got a 0-30 chance at the end of the second, he took it, broke, and drew level.
Except they weren’t level. Alcaraz has more touch, deployed the drop shot supremely and returned to attacking the forehand, while being pretty tough on his serves (not that Fritz wasn’t, but some of Alcaraz’s second serves were remarkable) and demanding he broke when he had a sniff of a chance. He broke twice in the third set. Fritz was more stable in the fourth, and although Alcaraz was trying to break him, couldn’t quite. It went to a tiebreak (which I had to watch in fits and starts), with Alcaraz getting the first minibreak because Fritz thought he could play cat and mouse (with Alcaraz? No.) He regained it by his baseline play, but then Alcaraz found some more shots that had Agassi basically giggling and then explaining how tough they were. Alcaraz won in four and is through to his third final here, with the chance of a hattrick (and doing the French-Wimbledon double twice.)
He talked about nerves in the on-court interview, but they weren’t really visible. There were a handful of points that he could have won had he gone for less of a glory shot, but he’s playing at a much higher level this second week. Fritz has improved from last year, and was a very worthy semi finalist, it’s just that (as in the US Open final), there’s a gulf between him, in and out of the top five these days, and the top two.
The next two men came on to a quiet crowd and atmosphere. Pros had given Sinner the edge, I was aware that you could never discount Djokovic, but nobody was sure how his fall towards the end of the quarters would affect him. After both had held serve, we started getting an answer. Sinner was on it, Djokovic less so, making errors, playing a loose game, Sinner capitalised, then rapidly consolidated, and it never felt as though the set was in doubt after that.
More people had returned to their seats, but although he was serving well, Djokovic’s play was erratic (for him), while Sinner was doing pretty much everything well. Djokovic was serve volleying, but in more of an ‘I can’t cope with Sinner in the baseline rallies today’ way than Alcaraz’s ‘and this is another way I can beat you’ approach when he served and volleyed against Fritz. Suddenly, Djokovic was two sets down. He got the trainer on to treat his abductor, which seemed to suggest that that fall had left its mark.
And then suddenly Djokovic was the one pressing, and Sinner looked a little more human. Djokovic was close to two breaks, which would have likely meant the set, but Sinner got back into it, won his service game and was back to his high level. He broke, it was back to terms, Djokovic wasn’t running for too many balls, Sinner clocked it, broke and Djokovic was going through the motions towards the end there. He was clearly hampered. Serve aside, his game – not least his movement – wasn’t there. Meanwhile, Sinner was moving better than he ever has at grass, displaying some touch, and has beaten Djokovic again, as he has since the 2023 Davis Cup, as he did in Paris.
They kept talking about all the times we’ve seen Djokovic turn things around, but that was a bit of the point, really. He’s 38, this was his twentieth Wimbledon. As he finds it harder to rely on his body, as he has more niggles and outright injuries, Sinner and Alcaraz are growing stronger and more experienced. Admittedly, my mind was also playing ‘what if…’ as to Dimitrov – would he have beaten Shelton? Would either of them have beaten Djokovic hampered like this?
But instead of a repeat of last year’s final here, we have a repeat of the French Open final. Sinner will want revenge from a tough loss, but Alcaraz currently has him beat and is the better grass-court player. Tennis has got the final it really wanted, as we settle in with the current rivalry. I think the Beeb would have liked a Raducanu vs. Kartal final (I’m chortling as I type this.) The tennis world would have fancied Sabalenka vs. Swiatek, even if nobody expected that final on grass until this fortnight. But if Anisimova backs this up, and why shouldn’t she, the women’s final is pretty good. American women’s tennis is in a great place as it’s produced four different slam finalists in the last 12 months.
