feather_ghyll

I was very good in the first week about keeping a diary of my thoughts about the championships, but I didn't get a chance to post them, and they almost feel redundant. I partly didn't get a chance to post them because I invariably chose to watch more tennis over coming over to the internet cafe.

Let's begin with The Final (which even non-tennis fans were gushing over). I had thought Nadal was in with his best chance yet due to his form on coming into the tournament, I saw more of him playing than Federer in the earlier rounds, and still thought so, with the caveat that I hadn't seen Federer play. Of course, I got caught up in the rest of the tournament - of the seeds coming tumbling down, Djokovic was the shocker. And why did not one commentator (that I came across) mention Safina's success at the French as a possible motivator for her big brother?

The tumbling women's seeds were less shocking when you looked at them individually although I only picked Radwanska as likely to beat Kuznetsova. I also found I didn't care so much about the women's matches - I read a really persuasive piece about how introducing five sets for the women would heighten the drama, and I tend to agree. I was really rooting for it not to be a Williams sister final (I'm ambivalent about them, although I'm growing to respect them more) as I thought it would be a terrible, miserable match going on past experience. Fortunately, it was much more competitive that I expected. I supported Venus solely because she'd been broken in her first game, which I don't like seeing unless if the break of serve happens to a player I'm rooting for, when I'm quite capable of wanting to see doughnuts (0s).

So, back to the men, until the final, Murray versus Gasquet was THE match of the tournament, with Murray willing the win. The muscle man moment felt like hubris, but he did as well as/better than I expected, and I'm sure he'll learn from this and improve. As he should. As Djokovic et al. will have to - funny how it was three apart from the pack at the start of the fortnight, and now there are three groups, guess who at the top, Djokovic and five or six others. And wild cards like Safin and Ancic, who were blinding at their best.

But for consistency and excellence, well, there's Federer and Nadal. I missed the second section of the match - and watching the tiebreak on the highlights show, I was rather glad, the end of the fifth was tense enough. Superlatives abound, because the quality of the shot-making was just that good. But Rafa won, deservedly, finally getting the result he'd been so close to all through the afternoon.

I hope Federer will be back, I think he must, he's too good not to - I also wonder whether Nadal will manage to sustain this level at the hard court and whether that won't be an opportunity for others. I hope the women sort themselves out a bit. I'm going to miss having tennis on the box, I must say, and I can't wait for the tennis in the Olympics. (On a slightly related point, I suspect that Chinese players will get more wild cards in the future, given the ratings push).

There's other stuff I could, should talk about, but the BBC coverage was pretty good (give or take Andrew Castle treating us like GMTV viewers with his need to explain everything). Henman possibly needs to talk some more, but had enough wit to cope with the ragging. I didn't hear any Michael Stich commentary which made me sad, because he's funny (I would have swopped a fair bit of Austin's earnestness to him). Even John Inverdale is growing on me. Okay, they pandered to the Murray = tennis and the parochialism aspect a tad too much, but it was understandable.

I feel obliged to write about the French Open, because I created a tab for it. As the championship wore on, the matches put one over earlier, and BBCi was my friend. Both women and men's semi-finals were enlightening. I'd seen Safina came back against Dementieva, but Kuznetsova folded a lot too, so I thought that the winner of the all-Serbian semi would be likely winner of the Open. (And how apt was it that it was an all Russian affair on one side and all Serbian on the other?) With Ivanovic, the steps she'd taken as a player since the last French Open final made it likely she'd be better able to cope with the occasion and have a better game to win. Though I find her charming, I was rooting for Jankovic and Safina for much of their matches. As it turned out, the final had an element of Ivanovic needing to underline that she deserved to be world number one in the present circumstances of the women's game. I thought that Justine Henin was really courageous and gracious in being the one to give the trophy.

As for the men, by the time of the semi-final, Nadal had shown that he was supreme on clay this year, beating good clay-court players, and nearly completely drubbing Djokovic, who had to come up with his best game in the third setto keep his head up. Due warning was served for the final, or so it seems with hindsight, but on the day I don't think anyone expected the win to be so overwhelming, and all the focus seemed to be on when and then if Federer could get his game together, as if it was to be expected that Nadal would be excellent. Well, it was, but he really was excellent. I think it'll make for an interesting grass court season.

And now we have to adjust to the green after the orange clay. It's a small adjustment compared with the adjustment of players must make so quickly obviously. I'm glued to Eurosport and BBCi, usually providing the same match only with different commentators (shut up, Frew MacMillan). O would be if they showed the doubles. The football is annoying, however, I hope it won't mess with Wimbledon, otherwise my rage and vitriol won't be good for my blood pressure.