feather_ghyll | Entries tagged with grass court season 2009

I feel almost unqualified to talk about the final, as I had to leave for church at around 7-6 in the fifth, knowing it would be the last man standing (but 16-14! I don't think my nerves could have taken it, and, as everyone said, if it had been Murray, they probably couldn't). I'd pegged Federer to win, but as soon as the heavily Roger-oriented 'greaest this', 'record that' build-up began, I found I wanted Roddick to begin. Well, it may have been either that or knowing that he had to get off to a good start, and wanting that for the sake of having a good match. But he did, great saves when he was facing break points, he took the first and the second looked like it was going to a break, which we knew he was good at. And good? Oh yes, at first. I think I got a little overset and thought that the point for 6-1 would have won him the breaker, but when I realised my mistake, I was confident that he'd take his four set points. And he didn't. He flunked it, while Federer did no less than you could expect him to do. Roddick fans either groaned, or like me and was it Henman? sat in stunned silence. The third set seemed to go by fast, but credit his resilience, although he must have been dreading the upcoming tiebreaker - I know I ws. Federer showed him how to do it and I was worried that the containing game wouldn't work and Federer's brillianc might become untethered and Roddick would fold up, regretting the second set bitterly, and the face that he hadn't lost a service game. But no. I wanted him to have the double-break to serve first, but he couldn't - Federer was too good, that old refrain - and anyway, the miracle was that it was down to the fifth set. Whoever won that would be the champion (time to think of the second set tie-break later by one and the overly defensive play later by another). And their serves wee awesome, and there was to be no tie-breaker, which Roddick must have relished, but there could be no loose games, but how could they play one now, at the end, anyway, in this, the final crystalised in the fifth set. AND I HAD TO GO.

I entertaned myself during the course of the match, repeatng my 'you're not on GMTV now, castle' refrain whenhe over-expalined. "We call this lined-off piece of grass the court, but not, of course, the tramlines, because this is a singls match, where you have two mewn playing each other. Those lines - tram lines the're called - are for doubles matches, that is when wo people play. Together. There are four people on court." Also, I liked to imagine Ndal crying manly tears into the Med (he really was the unmentioned missing presence) and Murray sitting on a sofa, making acid remarks about the tactics. I think thiswas inspired by the anecdote of roddick catching the last set of last year's final and it motivating him to come back. And come back he did, more serious, more intent. Fitter, yes, with Stefanki's game-plans, but older and more focused on his chances. And, whatever else, he was part of another final that can be rightly dubbed 'epic'.

As for the Championships, I'm hopeless at this, because i can't say which was the best match I watched - I have a feeling that I only saw bits or highlights of the matches that will go down as classics: Serena and Dementieva for the women; the final, Roddick versus Hewitt, Murray versus Wawrinka, Haas versus Cilic. What I missed the most, though, was a Michael Stich commentary. Where was he? Away? On radio? He's great. I'd rather him than John Lloyd.

My favourite ladies outfit - eh - this is a stab, but I really liked the back strapping of Venus's dress, o I'll give it to her (either she wears something really tasteful or reallu outre). The only reason I put that in is parity, because I want to talk about the excellent neck-line of Djokovic's tshirt. Seriously, I covet it. (So I would have thought would the men, with the Andies twitching their t-shirts like irritated toddlrs all the time). And with that (not the roof and the weather or how it's still Henman Hill or the dissection of the women's game or the British game) I leave Sw19 - mentally - for another 50 weeks or so.

I watched the tennis for most of the afternoon, but at about 75% intensity. I suppose one can't be into every match always, and perhaps I didn't care enough about the players. Yes, the Williamses are impressive and yes, their position as best of the game is ambiguous, because they don't play the tour like most other players, they focus on the grand slams etc. etc. Anyway, when Venus couldn't convert her chances in the first, mainly because Serena was serving with a strong arm (or legs, it's about the legs, apparently) and Serena outpowered her - quite comprehensively in the second. Well, it wasn't a classic, exactly. (And I was wrong.)

I half watched both the men and women's doubles finals, loving the rat-a-tat net exchanges the most. I hope Wimbledon digs its heels in and keeps the doubles matches as long a they should be nd keeps giving them the relative prestige that they get. It's also a shame that there are so few big opportunities to play mixed doubles, because professional sports are so often segregated on gender lines and here's one instance where they needn't be. Obviously, having two different tours means that it's difficult to arrange, but it's got fun dynamics.

( Women's semis )

( Men's semis )

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.

I pretty much only managed to see the highlights of the QFs, and it's testament to the strengths of the respective sports, that I'm more disappointed about losing the men's matches. [I caught the last two games of Roddick v. Hewitt and then got distracted by seeing the score of the second set tiebreak, which I misread as 19, not 11]. It's turned out almost as I'd mentally called it - I said Russians and Williamses, although I was making mental space for Kusnetsov as French Open champion (and a better grass court player than Safina, who I think has the least chance of going through in the women's). And okay, when Del Potro went out, I was expecting Roddick, Murray, Federer and Djokovic to be the last 4, but I'm very pleased for Haas (his age! His story! His good looks!!) Where was Djokovic's hunger? This man had beaten him in the Halle final, he'd had a good run, but it was time for the third-highest-ranked seed to smack him down on the bigger stage and - sans Nadal - show himself back to be back in contention. (Federer would have won, but Djokovic was meant to push and tire him in prepration for Murray.) Except he didn't. He's now underlined how he's outside of the big three. I hope women's world no. 4 Dementieva is hungrier and wants to improve on her performance last year. I have a longstanding and possibly unfair by now dislike of all-Williams finals. Even when both are putting their all into it, it's not a full-blooded rivalry, and there's a point at which you know one sister is hating it. It can be a right miserable time.

And although it's an interesting theoretical excercise as to who you'd support (the former world number one or two? The man with one slam, the one with none who came back from terrible injuries? The one with the amazing serve and wit? The one who looks a bit like Ethan Hawke>) Haas and Roddick simply mustn't be allowed to get in the way of the tantalising prospect that is Murray meeting Federer. I'm edgier about Murray, although he has Roddick's number and should win, while Federer has, under cover of the local drama, without the prospect of Nadal and having shcken off the French duck is winning easily enough to offer a constant reminder of why they call him the greatest of all time.

I didn't watch the final set of Murray/Wawrinka, because I thought Murray could have broken in the fourth and I was tired. I was in a snit because he hadn't, though I thought he was physically stronger.

To do this chronologically, I watched the Safina versus Mauresmo match, with Mauresmo's wiles eating the young Russian in a position she herself had been in, world no. 1 without a grand slam. I have to say, I didn't see anything in her game to make me think that Safina will win Wimbledon, or certainly not this year. However, she did get things together - but although it wasn't as consistent as that, there were a lot of switches of momentum. And the roof was closed.

I don't know how much of a factor that was for Murray (his serve!!) but the All England Club and the Beeb have their agenda, so it always made sense that they'd put him on last and wanted to see him finish. The other thing was that Wawrinka was so strong, so dictating. Murray imposed himself, his physicality (and the running winners of staggering brilliance) enough to win in the second and third, but although it seemed as if Wawrinka was beaten, Murray didn't get it done in that set.

Otherwise I'm disppointed that Verdasco isn't through, I want to see Haas versus Djokovic, and, given Queens, Murray should be relieved that Ferrero is his next opponent. But the Scot must consider how being the pawn of the schedulers and television will afftect him.

It's nice to have a day off as a viewer, although it's weird not to have the tennis on. But the coverage has somewhat blurred into one mass of 'That was worth a challenge!', 'Don't hit it there', the commentators praising an aspect of someone's game and them immediately the player making an error, talented teenagers who are on Centre Court instead of established favourites, but they're pretty (still, perhaps they are the future). And then Murray played a tight masterclass. I think the crowd were disappointed - I know the other player was frustrated - but I thought the ruthlessness and level of Murray's play was very promising. I'm tending to think that we'll see the top seeds through at the end in both the men and women's championships (Roddick is the fourth highest man left, isn't he?) But we'll see. Still, the prospect of Federer versus Murray meeting in the final and playing the kind of tennis they have been playing is very juicy. It doesn't have all the heft of the Nadal/Federer rivalry, but think of the shots!

The fourth set of Federer's third round match against Kohlschreiber is on in the background. I would be watching, but I have Freeview and it doesn't seem to like playing live tennis on BBC channels today - we had thunderstorms last night. Anyway, I'd be enjoying the tennis if it the sound and visuals weren't stuttering and skipping. This was the first Federer match I'd seen live this Wimbledon.

On day 3 (Wednesday), I more or less only saw the highlights programme. I'd kept an eye on the score of the Sharapova-Dulko match as it happened. Although things like 'Gruntwatch' make me giggle, I don't love the narrative or the tone of the BBC. I do feel that it panders to the 'Brit' Wimbledon Fan (Wimbledon fans being a different breed to tennis fans). The talk about British players, Murray and favourites and even grunting feels a bit like pandering. They'd been making out that Sharapova was a realistic favourite to win. She wasn't (it's either going to be a Williams or another Russian). I expected her to last longer, but not much, as she was obviously lacking match practice and needed to get used to her serve and build up consistency, among other things. But because she won that one time and has name recognition and is blonde and purty, she was touted as a favourite. Yes, the British results were disappointing, Baltacha shouldn't have been the only woman through to the second round and we should be comparing ourselves to France and asking why, but not going through this mean flagellation. And, TRULY, I didn't need to see Keovathong break down with simpering sympathy from the presenters as they showed the clip (she lost a match she should have won, it's not a death in the family and the media is being disingenuous to draw attention to the clip while offering that sympathy). Basically, I don't like most of the discussion, it seems beside the point or talking about the right things in the wrong way.

So on Day 4, I just watched the tennis. Murray was good, demolishing Gulbis in the first set and managing to show the difference in class between them from then on. I'd come home to be surprised by Hewitt winning against Del Potro, which means that Andies Roddick and Murray and Fernando Gonzales will be pleased and grateful in as much as they're looking that far forward. I also saw Jankovic play well; I'd like to see Kusnetsova play at some point.

So, back to the match, with Tim Henman and Petchey having been reduced to snickering at how good some of Federer's shots have been, although the German has really been playing well.

A part of me loves the opening days of grand slam the most, because there's a fizz of excitement. At Wimbledon, the courts are still fresh, there's an abundance of matches - great if you work, nd why did the Beeb deide to put its highlights on at eightish anyway, when, if the light holds, they'll go a good hour beyond that? There's the possibility of upsets, before you hav to face the fact that the seeding has more or less run true...

I've seen highlights and kept up to date, but the match I've seen the most of was Djokovic vs. Bennetau yeasterday. Tonight, I saw Murray also win in four (Federer and Del Potro did better) and Batalcha. The first two and the last game respectively were entertaining, anyway.

Queen's ( Read more... )

*I just checked the news before opening up this window. Nadal is set to play an exhibition on grass to test things out in the next few days.

And I came across this in-depth feature on Rafa, if anyone is interested.

Just watched the Queen's semi-finals. ( Read more... )

Netherdale For Ever: Theodora Wilson Wilson. The Swarthmore Press Ltd.

Five minutes Googling tells me that Wilson Wilson (yes, really) was a radical, pacifist Quakeress. All her books were published in the twentieth century, She lived from c1865 to 1941, and Netherdale For Ever was published in 1919. There's a reason I looked that last fact up. (I'm not sure whether my copy is that old, and that's not the reason).( Read more... )