TENNIS: Wimbledon finals
Jul. 8th, 2013 07:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feather_ghyllI feel like a fraud talking about Saturday, because the only live tennis I saw was the ladies’ doubles finals, and that was on in the background, because I was thinking more about my supper.
In hindsight, of course Bartoli did have the experience. In my defence, we hadn’t seen as much of her play as tournament darling Lisicki.
Watching the highlights, it was clear that Bartoli wanted it and went for it. Lisicki was disappointed about being unable to perform (or rather, nearly crying about her serve), but at least she came back for the second set to be respectable (by women’s Wimbledon final standards).
Bartoli came across as very charming in – although it’s hard not to be charming when you’ve won Wimbledon – and happily quirky in her interviews and I find I’m happy for her.
Then came Sunday.
I was determined to make no predictions other than it would be a good match for Murray vs Djokovic, although I was heartened by foreign pundits giving Murray a chance on the Beeb, but then they were doing it on the Beeb and the question was ‘who knew?’
I watched most of the match until 4-4 in the third, when I had to leave. I discovered the result through the radio playing through the open door of a parked coach that I was passing later in the afternoon.
The build-up, well, there was the ‘In 1936’ intro in which Tim Henman (a barrowboy in a trailer for the final they’d aired on Saturday) told us Stanley Baldwin had been Prime Minister, John MacEnroe told us Franklin Delano Roosevelt had been President of the USA and Boris Becker...told us Jesse Owens won the Olympics. This made me laugh inappropriately, although I suppose it was the best they could do in the circumstances.
In between sets, the Beeb chose to play momentous music that had me muttering ‘This is not just a Wimbledon men’s final...’
But one of the commentators said nicely that the atmosphere was different this year (after the much rehearsed Tears, the Olympics, the US Open and hitting Ivan Lendl). Last year, there’d been hope, this year there was expectation.
I was veering more towards hope, even as Murray started better, served better and converted break points. Amazing hitting in some long rallies. But then the winners and unforced errors stats came up. And the score reflected that.
One set up. Four-one down. Then two sets up. Two games up. Was this happening? Like Becker, I thought Castle was too hasty with his ‘1936 and all that’ as this was Novak Djokovic on the other side, and so it proved, but Murray fought back. As I said, I had to leave at four all, having just observed, because my tactical nous is clearly better than the world no. 1 – well, it was about this point – that expecting a different result in deploying that drop shot to the same place was just silly as, once again, Murray ran up to it and hitt a passing winner.
I am not clear on what happened next except that Murray won the last point, his mother cried and he got to kiss the trophy. I’ll try to catch the highlights programme over the next few days.
But although it was a close three setter, it was a three setter. That’s a really good win in and of itself. That’s ‘I belong’ and ‘this is a real rivalry’.
I am now dimly remembering thinking that, based on last year and this year’s tournament, Murray and Federer were perhaps better grass court players than Dlokovic and Nadal, and, of course, we needed to see how the events at the French had affected the last two. As it turned out, Federer and Nadal had to leave extremely early, and the two magnetic forces seemed to be Murray and Djokovic. How will losing the French and Wimbledon (again) affect Djokovic? How will this new and matured Murray respond to being defending champion at Flushing Meadows? Perhaps it’s too early to ask. I will merely note that, other sportspeople saving kittens or small children aside, I think we all know who will win the sports personality of the year.
In hindsight, of course Bartoli did have the experience. In my defence, we hadn’t seen as much of her play as tournament darling Lisicki.
Watching the highlights, it was clear that Bartoli wanted it and went for it. Lisicki was disappointed about being unable to perform (or rather, nearly crying about her serve), but at least she came back for the second set to be respectable (by women’s Wimbledon final standards).
Bartoli came across as very charming in – although it’s hard not to be charming when you’ve won Wimbledon – and happily quirky in her interviews and I find I’m happy for her.
Then came Sunday.
I was determined to make no predictions other than it would be a good match for Murray vs Djokovic, although I was heartened by foreign pundits giving Murray a chance on the Beeb, but then they were doing it on the Beeb and the question was ‘who knew?’
I watched most of the match until 4-4 in the third, when I had to leave. I discovered the result through the radio playing through the open door of a parked coach that I was passing later in the afternoon.
The build-up, well, there was the ‘In 1936’ intro in which Tim Henman (a barrowboy in a trailer for the final they’d aired on Saturday) told us Stanley Baldwin had been Prime Minister, John MacEnroe told us Franklin Delano Roosevelt had been President of the USA and Boris Becker...told us Jesse Owens won the Olympics. This made me laugh inappropriately, although I suppose it was the best they could do in the circumstances.
In between sets, the Beeb chose to play momentous music that had me muttering ‘This is not just a Wimbledon men’s final...’
But one of the commentators said nicely that the atmosphere was different this year (after the much rehearsed Tears, the Olympics, the US Open and hitting Ivan Lendl). Last year, there’d been hope, this year there was expectation.
I was veering more towards hope, even as Murray started better, served better and converted break points. Amazing hitting in some long rallies. But then the winners and unforced errors stats came up. And the score reflected that.
One set up. Four-one down. Then two sets up. Two games up. Was this happening? Like Becker, I thought Castle was too hasty with his ‘1936 and all that’ as this was Novak Djokovic on the other side, and so it proved, but Murray fought back. As I said, I had to leave at four all, having just observed, because my tactical nous is clearly better than the world no. 1 – well, it was about this point – that expecting a different result in deploying that drop shot to the same place was just silly as, once again, Murray ran up to it and hitt a passing winner.
I am not clear on what happened next except that Murray won the last point, his mother cried and he got to kiss the trophy. I’ll try to catch the highlights programme over the next few days.
But although it was a close three setter, it was a three setter. That’s a really good win in and of itself. That’s ‘I belong’ and ‘this is a real rivalry’.
I am now dimly remembering thinking that, based on last year and this year’s tournament, Murray and Federer were perhaps better grass court players than Dlokovic and Nadal, and, of course, we needed to see how the events at the French had affected the last two. As it turned out, Federer and Nadal had to leave extremely early, and the two magnetic forces seemed to be Murray and Djokovic. How will losing the French and Wimbledon (again) affect Djokovic? How will this new and matured Murray respond to being defending champion at Flushing Meadows? Perhaps it’s too early to ask. I will merely note that, other sportspeople saving kittens or small children aside, I think we all know who will win the sports personality of the year.
