TENNIS: French Open final thoughts
Jun. 6th, 2011 08:03 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feather_ghyllWomen I thought Schiavone would win. I thought her flair would be that little extra that would tell, allied to the fact that she was defending champion. But then Li seemed much more composed than she'd been at the Austrailan Open (that experience obviously helped) and very early on, I was reminded by the commentators and her play that she was a competent enough player at the net. It became increasingly obvious that she was getting the rallies on her terms, hitting the ball cleanly and doing what Schiavone had stopped Stosur from doing last year. Schiavone scrabbled back in the second, there was that questionable line (the umpire was a bit dithery). I was baying at the French Tv dirctor to replay the shot in slo-mo. I think I've only seen them do that once in the tournament, whereas they'd replay it over and over on the Beeb. Anyway, that may hve been a spur, but Li Na played a superlative tie-break and was the deserving winner. Good on her (and the coach of so short a time who's helped her take a step up), it's a wonderful pesonal achievement. I am sure it will help the sport achieve every sport's aim of 'breaking Asia'. As for the women's game afj;aghvihheagvgi????
A word on the commentators, Sam is still my favourite, but at least John Lloyd upped his game from the semis on. Maybe it's good play that gets him capable of making insightful comments. Certainly, we have learned of the gaps in his memory. Andrew 'Ebb and Flow' Castle still thinks he's presenting GMTV and that he needs to explain everything to simpletons, although I like his description of the grand slams as festivals of tennis. But he did seem to be jumping on Sam Smith's work WRT synthesising and pulling out the most illuminating stats.
Men Nadal and Federer. Again. The build-up pointed out that it's been a long while, that the grand slam final wins are now in Nadal's favour (Federer's play reaching old heights in the semis tempting us to forget that the rankings are there for a reason). Game on.
And Federer came out strong, as he had in the semi. Nadal seemed to be making errors, to be not quite there, and Federer's serve was sweet. Then we had the moment where we wereall invited to consider tennis players' feet (er, no thanks) and it was five-two until Nadal, five-time champion at Roland Garros reasserted himself. There was one point where I howled 'But how did he do that?'. Movement, strength and tactics.
Perhaps I should mention here that, unlike the crowd, i was rooting for Nadal. I've long been in that camp. The fact that he looks like a brigand probably helps. I can see that Federer pulls off the most sublime shots and some of the points were outstanding, but there you go.
The second set, the rain that may have cost Nadal the first set point, but the tie-breaker - making s thing of the women's final - and Nadal won, emphatically. We all looked ahead. Federer seemed out after the break of serve. But then (and I only believed he was in trouble after 0-30) Nadal lost his serve. Not that I should presume to tell the world number one anything about tennis, but a break is no good unless if you back it up Based on most of the match, I kept expcting him to come back, but no. Federer had moments of brilliance, stelliness and the crowd got what they wanted.
Disgruntled, I had to leave (no, literally. I had hoped to see Nadal win and the prize being given live.) Nadal should still win, but not if he didn't find his way out of the comparative slump.
I managed not to find out the result and sat down to watch the highlights. So, I admired the editing that compressed the match and the shot-making, the points, the sheer ability of these two players and then watched, in increasing pleasure, as Nedal reversed 0-40 in the first game of the fourth and won. Decisviely. Next, he was up a break AND BACKED IT UP. Hurrah. Suddenly it was match point and he'd won for the sixth time, reiterated that he was the king of clay (both men have made points to usurping Djokovic, but of course they'll have to make them all over again at Wimbledon). Excellent, fascinating stuff, if not the classic the broadcasters longed for. The gap between their last grand slam match-up has reminded us of how great their rivalry is. Two of the best, bringing out the best and the toughest in each other.
And now, we switch over to grass. I am always discombobulated by that, but very happy with the fact that there is more tennis.
A word on the commentators, Sam is still my favourite, but at least John Lloyd upped his game from the semis on. Maybe it's good play that gets him capable of making insightful comments. Certainly, we have learned of the gaps in his memory. Andrew 'Ebb and Flow' Castle still thinks he's presenting GMTV and that he needs to explain everything to simpletons, although I like his description of the grand slams as festivals of tennis. But he did seem to be jumping on Sam Smith's work WRT synthesising and pulling out the most illuminating stats.
Men Nadal and Federer. Again. The build-up pointed out that it's been a long while, that the grand slam final wins are now in Nadal's favour (Federer's play reaching old heights in the semis tempting us to forget that the rankings are there for a reason). Game on.
And Federer came out strong, as he had in the semi. Nadal seemed to be making errors, to be not quite there, and Federer's serve was sweet. Then we had the moment where we wereall invited to consider tennis players' feet (er, no thanks) and it was five-two until Nadal, five-time champion at Roland Garros reasserted himself. There was one point where I howled 'But how did he do that?'. Movement, strength and tactics.
Perhaps I should mention here that, unlike the crowd, i was rooting for Nadal. I've long been in that camp. The fact that he looks like a brigand probably helps. I can see that Federer pulls off the most sublime shots and some of the points were outstanding, but there you go.
The second set, the rain that may have cost Nadal the first set point, but the tie-breaker - making s thing of the women's final - and Nadal won, emphatically. We all looked ahead. Federer seemed out after the break of serve. But then (and I only believed he was in trouble after 0-30) Nadal lost his serve. Not that I should presume to tell the world number one anything about tennis, but a break is no good unless if you back it up Based on most of the match, I kept expcting him to come back, but no. Federer had moments of brilliance, stelliness and the crowd got what they wanted.
Disgruntled, I had to leave (no, literally. I had hoped to see Nadal win and the prize being given live.) Nadal should still win, but not if he didn't find his way out of the comparative slump.
I managed not to find out the result and sat down to watch the highlights. So, I admired the editing that compressed the match and the shot-making, the points, the sheer ability of these two players and then watched, in increasing pleasure, as Nedal reversed 0-40 in the first game of the fourth and won. Decisviely. Next, he was up a break AND BACKED IT UP. Hurrah. Suddenly it was match point and he'd won for the sixth time, reiterated that he was the king of clay (both men have made points to usurping Djokovic, but of course they'll have to make them all over again at Wimbledon). Excellent, fascinating stuff, if not the classic the broadcasters longed for. The gap between their last grand slam match-up has reminded us of how great their rivalry is. Two of the best, bringing out the best and the toughest in each other.
And now, we switch over to grass. I am always discombobulated by that, but very happy with the fact that there is more tennis.
