![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feather_ghyllFriday, Saturday and Sunday
The middle of yesterday afternoon (Sunday), I thought ‘I really should have posted yesterday morning’ but the natural order of things in tennis were reset by the end of the day. This is the stage of a grand slam when, despite however much I’ve enjoyed the dramas and the upsets and the tennis in the matches so far, I start to want to see the favourites play and judge how they look for myself. The top seeds usually play in the early afternoon, so I won’t have seen them. (Fortunately I have the rest of the week off, although I suspect I’ll miss both singles finals live.)
On Friday, I got to see Djokovic and Federer play. I very much enjoyed the Mahut match. Since his run at Queen’s – even before the extremities of that Isner match – I’ve always liked Mahut for his style of play. He’s another Frenchman with flair. Here he played disruptive tennis well and intelligently to deservedly get a set off Federer and keep him uncomfortable.
All the talk on Friday evening was about Murray’s match for Saturday and whether his back would take it, but I wanted to see Nadal play far, far more.
Sam Smith’s Eeyoreish (but accurate) take on the unpredictability of women’s tennis when male commentators join her and think they can read a match has convulsed me. Cue the Schiavone match putting back Murray’s. Cue the drama of Wozniacki versus Kaneppi. In the meantime, intense Sharapova super-efficiently dealt with her competition, but I’m not going to be idiot enough and say that that means anything. There’s no point trying to predict a winner until some chunk of the women’s finales is being played although I will note that Stosur went through yesterday. That Azarenka did not was both a shock and not, as this is the women’s game. In fairness, dimunitvie Dominika (sp? – I’m not even going to attempt the surname from memory) played most impressively.
But while you expect upsets on the women’s side, one of the male top three? Nay, two of them? Happy birthday, Rafael Nadal! I started watching the Djokovic match towards the end of the second set, where Djokovic just didn’t seem to have any answers. He did grind it out, but it was a strange one. Seppi played well, although his level dipped as he was put under more pressure, and maybe dealt with the conditions better. I think, also, he’d prepared well tactically to nullify some of Djokovic’s weapons. I mainly stayed with that match, but during the ad breaks, would switch over to hear Petchey exclaim at Goffen’s shot making. The little boy (because he looks about sixteen) did good, wasn’t intimidated and pushed and pushed, but Federer’s experience and reserves told, and once he’d got the second set, Goffen ran out of competition, but did himself proud and is, apparently, an exciting prospect.
Murray vs. Gasquet is an attractive prospect of a match – oh, and that’s another thing, I wish John Inverdale and one of the commentators (Nick Mullins, I think) would stop using ‘game’ instead of ‘match’. A game is a very specific thing in tennis!
But it’s fair to say what a tournament it’s been so far. I’m wondering if all the three and five set matches speak to depth of fields this year. Also, as has been mentioned, it’s an Olympic year, and a lot of players are on the cusp of getting to represent their country at the Olympics in Wimbledon, which has to be the best location for Olympic tennis so far, so that adds another dimension to the Championship. I’m happily fascinated, anyway.
The middle of yesterday afternoon (Sunday), I thought ‘I really should have posted yesterday morning’ but the natural order of things in tennis were reset by the end of the day. This is the stage of a grand slam when, despite however much I’ve enjoyed the dramas and the upsets and the tennis in the matches so far, I start to want to see the favourites play and judge how they look for myself. The top seeds usually play in the early afternoon, so I won’t have seen them. (Fortunately I have the rest of the week off, although I suspect I’ll miss both singles finals live.)
On Friday, I got to see Djokovic and Federer play. I very much enjoyed the Mahut match. Since his run at Queen’s – even before the extremities of that Isner match – I’ve always liked Mahut for his style of play. He’s another Frenchman with flair. Here he played disruptive tennis well and intelligently to deservedly get a set off Federer and keep him uncomfortable.
All the talk on Friday evening was about Murray’s match for Saturday and whether his back would take it, but I wanted to see Nadal play far, far more.
Sam Smith’s Eeyoreish (but accurate) take on the unpredictability of women’s tennis when male commentators join her and think they can read a match has convulsed me. Cue the Schiavone match putting back Murray’s. Cue the drama of Wozniacki versus Kaneppi. In the meantime, intense Sharapova super-efficiently dealt with her competition, but I’m not going to be idiot enough and say that that means anything. There’s no point trying to predict a winner until some chunk of the women’s finales is being played although I will note that Stosur went through yesterday. That Azarenka did not was both a shock and not, as this is the women’s game. In fairness, dimunitvie Dominika (sp? – I’m not even going to attempt the surname from memory) played most impressively.
But while you expect upsets on the women’s side, one of the male top three? Nay, two of them? Happy birthday, Rafael Nadal! I started watching the Djokovic match towards the end of the second set, where Djokovic just didn’t seem to have any answers. He did grind it out, but it was a strange one. Seppi played well, although his level dipped as he was put under more pressure, and maybe dealt with the conditions better. I think, also, he’d prepared well tactically to nullify some of Djokovic’s weapons. I mainly stayed with that match, but during the ad breaks, would switch over to hear Petchey exclaim at Goffen’s shot making. The little boy (because he looks about sixteen) did good, wasn’t intimidated and pushed and pushed, but Federer’s experience and reserves told, and once he’d got the second set, Goffen ran out of competition, but did himself proud and is, apparently, an exciting prospect.
Murray vs. Gasquet is an attractive prospect of a match – oh, and that’s another thing, I wish John Inverdale and one of the commentators (Nick Mullins, I think) would stop using ‘game’ instead of ‘match’. A game is a very specific thing in tennis!
But it’s fair to say what a tournament it’s been so far. I’m wondering if all the three and five set matches speak to depth of fields this year. Also, as has been mentioned, it’s an Olympic year, and a lot of players are on the cusp of getting to represent their country at the Olympics in Wimbledon, which has to be the best location for Olympic tennis so far, so that adds another dimension to the Championship. I’m happily fascinated, anyway.
