TENNIS: Wimbledon semi finals.
Jul. 4th, 2009 10:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feather_ghyllI came home to find out the second semi-final was only just beginning, which told me the first was a long one, and, I later discovered, a classic. So, I was treated (I don't use the word sarcastically, by the way) to Venus Williams demolishing Safina. She outclassed her with her accuracy and power, and, I think has to be the favourites to win the championship.
As for Safina and the 'oh no, a number one who hasn't won a grand slam!' and the associated 'She's a choker' claims…eh. I don't thin that this was the precise example to back it up. She deserves her spot under this ranking system, and yes, Serena and Venus and Dementieva are better players (on grass. I don't think Venus is on other surfaces), but the Williamses notoriously don't play as many matches as any of the other top players. Of course, they have in some ways been vindicated for doing so by their longevity, success and hunger. The grand slams can't seed arbitrarily - I think Wimbledon still has more leeway because of the grass court factor - but they're part of the WTA's year (and like the men's side, it is probably too heavy). Of course, it could be argued that what Wimbledon was doing was 'seeding' in terms of the scheduling, if you wanted to compare Venus's number of matches as defending champion on the showiest of the shows with Serena, Dementieva and Safina's et al. (Although it probably had more to do with the pretty teenagers and the top 3 men being favoured).
Anyway, I know the scoreline was horrific, but Safina seemed to be already thinking about what she should learn from$ the defeat in the post-match press conference. I doubt that her first grand slam will come on grass. I'm not arguing that the women's game is that strong - it isn't, but I think ther media attitudes (okay, as channelled theough John Inverdale) aren't quite on target.
Similar timing with the men's, except I came in on the last few games of the first set to diecover that it was close, Murray was tight and Roddick was playing smart. I watched him win, then got relieved when Murray grabbed the second. Indeed, when Roddick was down 0-40 in the opening game of the third, I thought 'he's better than this', because had Murray got that lead, one would have thought he wouldn't have let it go - and it was close, a handful of points and Murray could have been the one to win in four. Roddick remembered he was goo. His serve was deceptive, I was constantly surprised when they told us how high his first serve percentage was, which is further grist to y theory that the serve was the shot that was the basis to this whole match. Murray has to work on his second serve more because when he was under pressure and his first serve went, how attackable was that second serve of his. Roddick and his coch clearly had the game plan to contain him down, there are players like Gonzalez and Wawrinka with the build to be troublesome and Murray is now a target.
As Murray failed to win the third - Roddick could do worse than to play for tie-breaks in the final - and break in the fourth, I grew more despondent, realising how much I had invested in Murray, how much I'd jolly well expected him to go through and play delectable tennis with Federer. (I think Federer will win against Roddick as I think he would have against Murray, but tennis-wise, the final that isn't to be is the one we'd have savoured, although I have hopes of drama, as it is, and Stefanki is clearly bringing out the best in Roddick). But no. And yes, one can say he's 22 and learning, he's improved on last year's performance, he has the game to win a slam...but, but Nadal was out this year, he had the record against Roddick and I can rationalise, but I'm disappointed. As everyone is appropriating 'Independence Day', I actually want Federer to win for Europe, which is...what it is. [And there I though I'd manage to avoid talking about nationalism and politics!]
I also watched Jamie Murray's semi finals, which were notable for proving that he's better than no. 75 in doubles, and that Sam Smith has a crush on Daniel Nestor. I always rather like it when the female commentators (Jo Durie does it more) gt to discuss the men's looks. (WHAT?) On a more serious note, the day we've arrived is the day an all-female commentator team will cover a men's match.
As for Safina and the 'oh no, a number one who hasn't won a grand slam!' and the associated 'She's a choker' claims…eh. I don't thin that this was the precise example to back it up. She deserves her spot under this ranking system, and yes, Serena and Venus and Dementieva are better players (on grass. I don't think Venus is on other surfaces), but the Williamses notoriously don't play as many matches as any of the other top players. Of course, they have in some ways been vindicated for doing so by their longevity, success and hunger. The grand slams can't seed arbitrarily - I think Wimbledon still has more leeway because of the grass court factor - but they're part of the WTA's year (and like the men's side, it is probably too heavy). Of course, it could be argued that what Wimbledon was doing was 'seeding' in terms of the scheduling, if you wanted to compare Venus's number of matches as defending champion on the showiest of the shows with Serena, Dementieva and Safina's et al. (Although it probably had more to do with the pretty teenagers and the top 3 men being favoured).
Anyway, I know the scoreline was horrific, but Safina seemed to be already thinking about what she should learn from$ the defeat in the post-match press conference. I doubt that her first grand slam will come on grass. I'm not arguing that the women's game is that strong - it isn't, but I think ther media attitudes (okay, as channelled theough John Inverdale) aren't quite on target.
Similar timing with the men's, except I came in on the last few games of the first set to diecover that it was close, Murray was tight and Roddick was playing smart. I watched him win, then got relieved when Murray grabbed the second. Indeed, when Roddick was down 0-40 in the opening game of the third, I thought 'he's better than this', because had Murray got that lead, one would have thought he wouldn't have let it go - and it was close, a handful of points and Murray could have been the one to win in four. Roddick remembered he was goo. His serve was deceptive, I was constantly surprised when they told us how high his first serve percentage was, which is further grist to y theory that the serve was the shot that was the basis to this whole match. Murray has to work on his second serve more because when he was under pressure and his first serve went, how attackable was that second serve of his. Roddick and his coch clearly had the game plan to contain him down, there are players like Gonzalez and Wawrinka with the build to be troublesome and Murray is now a target.
As Murray failed to win the third - Roddick could do worse than to play for tie-breaks in the final - and break in the fourth, I grew more despondent, realising how much I had invested in Murray, how much I'd jolly well expected him to go through and play delectable tennis with Federer. (I think Federer will win against Roddick as I think he would have against Murray, but tennis-wise, the final that isn't to be is the one we'd have savoured, although I have hopes of drama, as it is, and Stefanki is clearly bringing out the best in Roddick). But no. And yes, one can say he's 22 and learning, he's improved on last year's performance, he has the game to win a slam...but, but Nadal was out this year, he had the record against Roddick and I can rationalise, but I'm disappointed. As everyone is appropriating 'Independence Day', I actually want Federer to win for Europe, which is...what it is. [And there I though I'd manage to avoid talking about nationalism and politics!]
I also watched Jamie Murray's semi finals, which were notable for proving that he's better than no. 75 in doubles, and that Sam Smith has a crush on Daniel Nestor. I always rather like it when the female commentators (Jo Durie does it more) gt to discuss the men's looks. (WHAT?) On a more serious note, the day we've arrived is the day an all-female commentator team will cover a men's match.
