feather_ghyll (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
feather_ghyll) wrote2025-07-15 08:12 am
feather_ghyll) wrote2025-07-15 08:12 am
TENNIS - Wimbledon 2025 finals
Finals Saturday
Big build-up where they got actors from the upcoming Fantastic Four reboot for cross-promotional purposes, but then, of course, this year, the men’s doubles finals was up first on Centre Court, which didn’t get anything like the same build-up as the women’s singles. Now, this meant that there was a much bigger crowd watching them live, and there was British interest, as Julian Cash and Lloyd Glasspool faced Rinky Hijikata and David Pel. The first team were the fourth seeds, who’d been playing together all year and had won two grass-court tournaments together. The other two were a scratch team who hadn’t met until this fortnight and had come into the draw as alternates after another team pulled out.
Pel was the least experienced player and it showed, because he got broken twice, making the first set an easy one for Cash and Glasspool. The second set wasn’t as straightforward (I, er, dozed through a bit of it). The Brits broke then got broken back, but then won the tiebreak. Hijikata, the shortest man on court, was probably the best player, but the British men were the better team, their experience of playing together helping them work together well. Much was made of their being the first all-British team to win for ages, but, quite understandably, they were more chuffed by them personally winning.
I presume they’ve changed the order for TV, but because it was a two-setter and the women’s singles final was to start no earlier than four, there was some dead time. I ended up watching some of the boys doubles final on BBC Two, then did some rewinding for more big build up, so I actually watched the final twenty minutes after it had happened. The general consensus was that, based on her play and the stats from the tournament so far, Swiatek, who has won all five grand slam finals she’s made, was the favourite.
FWIW, Swiatek looked much as she had in the semis in the walk from the locker room to Centre Court, while Anisimova seemed more nervous. She was to serve first, and in that game, it was obvious that she was nervous. Swiatek had break points without having done much, but one thing that’s always true of her – she likes a fast start, and is a great front runner. Up a break, she was already racing ahead, and Anisimova went two breaks down. Swiatek was ruthless, and thinking clearly, because she never let Anisimova settle with her serves or gave her the same ball to hit. The errors kept coming and Anisimova could not string enough points together to build any momentum. I was reminded of the Pliskova freeze in her final against Barty after the first set ended 6-0. Swiatek, of course, had bagelled Bencic in her last match.
There was more of the same in the second set. Anisimova got more vocal. She tried switching it up, but Swiatek’s play was so good that she was able to take whatever Anisimova dished at her, and Anisimova kept making errors. She doesn’t have the game to give herself greater margins, she’s probably never felt like this on a tennis court. There was talk of her being more tired, but it was mostly being in a Wimbledon final, and that against an opponent who was barely giving her anything – like two or three double faults, probably no more than five errors all match. The crowd tried to help, but Anisimova could not get a game on the board, and even though Swiatek was a little tight (by her standards) at 5-0 in the second set, in that she took it on her second Championship point, she was too good and it was a drubbing. Anisimova couldn’t even make it last an hour.
One felt horrible for her and one wanted to celebrate Swiatek’s victory at the same time. A grand slam title on her ‘weakest surface’, the one she never expected, over a year since her last tournament win (the French Open ’24) with a new coach. The week’s training in Majorca, getting to the final at Bad Homberg, seeing the results of the changes she’d made and continued to make at Wimbledon must have helped. She couldn’t quite believe it, although as Wimbledon made a fuss of her as it does all its champions, it seemed to be sinking in.
She’s a six-time Grand Slam champion. After the pressure rolled off (only for a defending champion could a semi- final at the French be disappointing), she’s put herself back in the conversation and added to her lustrous reputation, surpassing Hingis (who was watching at the Royal Box) and Sharapova. I very much hope she takes the joy or less stressed version of herself she showed at this Wimbledon (not the final, where she was all focus and intensity until after the last point) with her through the rest of 2025. (And a stash of towels, as we all know.) If nothing else, she’ll have much more good stuff to take from Wimbledon than the rest of the top 10.
As for Anisimova, oh, how she deserved a hug. She must feel wretched, and she’ll have to work out how to manage the nerves and the everything if she ever gets to this position again (she should do, given her level of play. The last 12 months and her trajectory have been great.)
But – without taking away from Swiatek’s success – it was a letdown, because you always want a great match. It felt as though the men’s doubles should have come after, because that was a match (and any ticketholders who skipped it will be kicking themselves.) But given that the French Open women’s finals (featuring totally different players, of course) was so competitive (even if not an instant classic like the men’s), this was disappointing.
Finals Sunday
Less time in the schedules, so the women’s doubles final had already started by the time that BBC One joined it. The finalists were experienced campaigners, with three of the players on court having won grand slam doubles titles. The one who hadn’t, Kudremetova, had lost a final here to Mertens (now her partner) and Tsieh, here playing with Ostapenko. Kudremetova and Martens’s tactics were pretty clear, direct the ball at Tsieh if she was near the baseline, and Ostapenko if she was near the net, as those were their weaknesses. Three breaks to open, but the Belgian-Russian team held. Ostapenko was under pressure on her serve again, but found her first serve and winning that game helped stabilise her, her pair broke back and took the first set. But their opponents, who were probably steadier (Kudremetova being the more fiery of the two) won the second. It was a competitive match, Hsieh’s volleys, Ostapenko’s backhand and Kudremetova’s netplay all caught the attention. The third set was close, until the Russian-Belgian upped their level and their opponents couldn’t respond. Mertens was, if anything, more emotional at winning than Kudremetova, but both were clearly delighted. Because they hadn’t won, Ostapenko would not become doubles no. 1 for the first time (understand doubles rankings, I do not.)
There was less build-up for the men’s finals than there had been for the women. John MacEnroe did a piece offering advice to the finalists. The general consensus was that Alcaraz had the advantage on this surface because of his movement and variety. Claire Balding felt pretty safe in waxing lyrical about the upcoming match, because of the French Open final, although I was sceptical that this would last as long because it’s on grass, but if nothing else, the past two months have confirmed that this is THE rivalry of our days, and it’s a good one because of the contrast.
So, obviously, Alcaraz is my favourite male player to watch and I wanted him to win. I watched the first two games liveish, then there was a pause and I ended up watching the first two sets on the Centre Court stream, then catching up on the rest of the match on BBC One, by which point I had a fair idea of how long it would last, because of the length of the programme.
They both held serves, playing in such a way that, even though their timing of the ball wasn’t quite right, reassured everyone that it wasn’t going to be a repeat of the women’s final. But it was Sinner who broke first. This forced Alcaraz to lift his game, getting a run of four games to win the first set 6-4.
And then he had a loose service game at the start of the second, Sinner was ready and able to take advantage, and repelled any attempt at break backs. In hindsight, it was a turning point. But after Sinner won the second set 6-4, the third set was up for grabs. Except by this point it became clear that Alcaraz was serving below par, not getting enough first serves in, and thus making his service games more stressful, while Sinner was serving well and much better than he had in previous matches against Alcaraz (who has won the last five). This was crucial. It was also clear that Sinner and team had devised smart tactics to stop Alcaraz leaning left and deploying the slice as Dimitrov had or getting to come up with his stronger shots.
Sinner broke, a frustrated Alcaraz could not break back, didn’t know what to do. Sinner was, in fact, coming into net more often, and though he lacks Alcaraz’s fluency there, he has improved. The dropper wasn’t working for Alcaraz, partly because of Sinner’s movement, partly because he wasn’t executing them. It wasn’t a total drubbing, there were points where Alcaraz’s athleticism etc allowed him to cope with Sinner’s strikes in a way that no other player could. He had break points (the first in ages) in set four. But Sinner broke in the last three sets, consolidated it, and played strongly in the last game, losing only one Championship point, which much have led to a sharper intake of breath because of Paris, but was able to win the second with his plus one.
He's changed the story – which was that Alcaraz had his number on grass and clay. I think the point about Sinner’s baseline being better and Alcaraz’s highs higher (and lows lower) still stands. Here, Sinner had a game plan, he executed it and was able to be the more attacking player. Had Alcaraz held his concentration at the start of the second set, would the match have gone differently? Perhaps, but he and his team will have to rethink tactics for the next time he faces Sinner, which the tennis world has to hope is often and soon. (I suspect that Djokovic will not have been watching this final.)
Sinner is in the ascendancy, having improved enough on grass (and beaten the last two Wimbledon champions en route.) This backs up how, recently, only Alcaraz has actually beaten him. He is the world no. 1 (had he won one of those championship points in Paris, he’d have won the consecutive slam), and now he’s won on a new surface (the first Italian player to do so, which he didn’t care about.) The two men were gracious in their speeches – really good to see Alcaraz smile when asked if he’d be back, the smile of a 22 year old who wants another Wimbledon. We rushed away from the moment on the balcony because of TV coverage needs (and I think they’d have covered things differently if Alcaraz had won simply because he has more charisma, and is already beloved at Wimbledon. Sinner is respected, and even more so now.)
Big build-up where they got actors from the upcoming Fantastic Four reboot for cross-promotional purposes, but then, of course, this year, the men’s doubles finals was up first on Centre Court, which didn’t get anything like the same build-up as the women’s singles. Now, this meant that there was a much bigger crowd watching them live, and there was British interest, as Julian Cash and Lloyd Glasspool faced Rinky Hijikata and David Pel. The first team were the fourth seeds, who’d been playing together all year and had won two grass-court tournaments together. The other two were a scratch team who hadn’t met until this fortnight and had come into the draw as alternates after another team pulled out.
Pel was the least experienced player and it showed, because he got broken twice, making the first set an easy one for Cash and Glasspool. The second set wasn’t as straightforward (I, er, dozed through a bit of it). The Brits broke then got broken back, but then won the tiebreak. Hijikata, the shortest man on court, was probably the best player, but the British men were the better team, their experience of playing together helping them work together well. Much was made of their being the first all-British team to win for ages, but, quite understandably, they were more chuffed by them personally winning.
I presume they’ve changed the order for TV, but because it was a two-setter and the women’s singles final was to start no earlier than four, there was some dead time. I ended up watching some of the boys doubles final on BBC Two, then did some rewinding for more big build up, so I actually watched the final twenty minutes after it had happened. The general consensus was that, based on her play and the stats from the tournament so far, Swiatek, who has won all five grand slam finals she’s made, was the favourite.
FWIW, Swiatek looked much as she had in the semis in the walk from the locker room to Centre Court, while Anisimova seemed more nervous. She was to serve first, and in that game, it was obvious that she was nervous. Swiatek had break points without having done much, but one thing that’s always true of her – she likes a fast start, and is a great front runner. Up a break, she was already racing ahead, and Anisimova went two breaks down. Swiatek was ruthless, and thinking clearly, because she never let Anisimova settle with her serves or gave her the same ball to hit. The errors kept coming and Anisimova could not string enough points together to build any momentum. I was reminded of the Pliskova freeze in her final against Barty after the first set ended 6-0. Swiatek, of course, had bagelled Bencic in her last match.
There was more of the same in the second set. Anisimova got more vocal. She tried switching it up, but Swiatek’s play was so good that she was able to take whatever Anisimova dished at her, and Anisimova kept making errors. She doesn’t have the game to give herself greater margins, she’s probably never felt like this on a tennis court. There was talk of her being more tired, but it was mostly being in a Wimbledon final, and that against an opponent who was barely giving her anything – like two or three double faults, probably no more than five errors all match. The crowd tried to help, but Anisimova could not get a game on the board, and even though Swiatek was a little tight (by her standards) at 5-0 in the second set, in that she took it on her second Championship point, she was too good and it was a drubbing. Anisimova couldn’t even make it last an hour.
One felt horrible for her and one wanted to celebrate Swiatek’s victory at the same time. A grand slam title on her ‘weakest surface’, the one she never expected, over a year since her last tournament win (the French Open ’24) with a new coach. The week’s training in Majorca, getting to the final at Bad Homberg, seeing the results of the changes she’d made and continued to make at Wimbledon must have helped. She couldn’t quite believe it, although as Wimbledon made a fuss of her as it does all its champions, it seemed to be sinking in.
She’s a six-time Grand Slam champion. After the pressure rolled off (only for a defending champion could a semi- final at the French be disappointing), she’s put herself back in the conversation and added to her lustrous reputation, surpassing Hingis (who was watching at the Royal Box) and Sharapova. I very much hope she takes the joy or less stressed version of herself she showed at this Wimbledon (not the final, where she was all focus and intensity until after the last point) with her through the rest of 2025. (And a stash of towels, as we all know.) If nothing else, she’ll have much more good stuff to take from Wimbledon than the rest of the top 10.
As for Anisimova, oh, how she deserved a hug. She must feel wretched, and she’ll have to work out how to manage the nerves and the everything if she ever gets to this position again (she should do, given her level of play. The last 12 months and her trajectory have been great.)
But – without taking away from Swiatek’s success – it was a letdown, because you always want a great match. It felt as though the men’s doubles should have come after, because that was a match (and any ticketholders who skipped it will be kicking themselves.) But given that the French Open women’s finals (featuring totally different players, of course) was so competitive (even if not an instant classic like the men’s), this was disappointing.
Finals Sunday
Less time in the schedules, so the women’s doubles final had already started by the time that BBC One joined it. The finalists were experienced campaigners, with three of the players on court having won grand slam doubles titles. The one who hadn’t, Kudremetova, had lost a final here to Mertens (now her partner) and Tsieh, here playing with Ostapenko. Kudremetova and Martens’s tactics were pretty clear, direct the ball at Tsieh if she was near the baseline, and Ostapenko if she was near the net, as those were their weaknesses. Three breaks to open, but the Belgian-Russian team held. Ostapenko was under pressure on her serve again, but found her first serve and winning that game helped stabilise her, her pair broke back and took the first set. But their opponents, who were probably steadier (Kudremetova being the more fiery of the two) won the second. It was a competitive match, Hsieh’s volleys, Ostapenko’s backhand and Kudremetova’s netplay all caught the attention. The third set was close, until the Russian-Belgian upped their level and their opponents couldn’t respond. Mertens was, if anything, more emotional at winning than Kudremetova, but both were clearly delighted. Because they hadn’t won, Ostapenko would not become doubles no. 1 for the first time (understand doubles rankings, I do not.)
There was less build-up for the men’s finals than there had been for the women. John MacEnroe did a piece offering advice to the finalists. The general consensus was that Alcaraz had the advantage on this surface because of his movement and variety. Claire Balding felt pretty safe in waxing lyrical about the upcoming match, because of the French Open final, although I was sceptical that this would last as long because it’s on grass, but if nothing else, the past two months have confirmed that this is THE rivalry of our days, and it’s a good one because of the contrast.
So, obviously, Alcaraz is my favourite male player to watch and I wanted him to win. I watched the first two games liveish, then there was a pause and I ended up watching the first two sets on the Centre Court stream, then catching up on the rest of the match on BBC One, by which point I had a fair idea of how long it would last, because of the length of the programme.
They both held serves, playing in such a way that, even though their timing of the ball wasn’t quite right, reassured everyone that it wasn’t going to be a repeat of the women’s final. But it was Sinner who broke first. This forced Alcaraz to lift his game, getting a run of four games to win the first set 6-4.
And then he had a loose service game at the start of the second, Sinner was ready and able to take advantage, and repelled any attempt at break backs. In hindsight, it was a turning point. But after Sinner won the second set 6-4, the third set was up for grabs. Except by this point it became clear that Alcaraz was serving below par, not getting enough first serves in, and thus making his service games more stressful, while Sinner was serving well and much better than he had in previous matches against Alcaraz (who has won the last five). This was crucial. It was also clear that Sinner and team had devised smart tactics to stop Alcaraz leaning left and deploying the slice as Dimitrov had or getting to come up with his stronger shots.
Sinner broke, a frustrated Alcaraz could not break back, didn’t know what to do. Sinner was, in fact, coming into net more often, and though he lacks Alcaraz’s fluency there, he has improved. The dropper wasn’t working for Alcaraz, partly because of Sinner’s movement, partly because he wasn’t executing them. It wasn’t a total drubbing, there were points where Alcaraz’s athleticism etc allowed him to cope with Sinner’s strikes in a way that no other player could. He had break points (the first in ages) in set four. But Sinner broke in the last three sets, consolidated it, and played strongly in the last game, losing only one Championship point, which much have led to a sharper intake of breath because of Paris, but was able to win the second with his plus one.
He's changed the story – which was that Alcaraz had his number on grass and clay. I think the point about Sinner’s baseline being better and Alcaraz’s highs higher (and lows lower) still stands. Here, Sinner had a game plan, he executed it and was able to be the more attacking player. Had Alcaraz held his concentration at the start of the second set, would the match have gone differently? Perhaps, but he and his team will have to rethink tactics for the next time he faces Sinner, which the tennis world has to hope is often and soon. (I suspect that Djokovic will not have been watching this final.)
Sinner is in the ascendancy, having improved enough on grass (and beaten the last two Wimbledon champions en route.) This backs up how, recently, only Alcaraz has actually beaten him. He is the world no. 1 (had he won one of those championship points in Paris, he’d have won the consecutive slam), and now he’s won on a new surface (the first Italian player to do so, which he didn’t care about.) The two men were gracious in their speeches – really good to see Alcaraz smile when asked if he’d be back, the smile of a 22 year old who wants another Wimbledon. We rushed away from the moment on the balcony because of TV coverage needs (and I think they’d have covered things differently if Alcaraz had won simply because he has more charisma, and is already beloved at Wimbledon. Sinner is respected, and even more so now.)