feather_ghyll

I added a couple of links to yesterday's post on Meg Cabot and L. M. Montgomery, the premise of which I almost feel the need to disclaim today.

I'd read the result of the men's final before seeing the highlights programme this afternoon. Though with all those set points in the first set, I could almost believe that I'd been lied to about the score...Almost. Ouch to Djokovic on the double faults that handed Federer the first set. As others have said, the champion raised his game on the key points. Or did enough to win. Djokovic is young, he's taken the next step to get to the final (helped by Nadal being out of sorts?). I'm not sure that he has the weapons to make it to the next level of winning a Slam, but he's staked his claim as a serious contender.

And now that the results are through, and all that really matters is who won, it's worth looking at how the seedings ran more or less true - Kusnetzova becoming no. 2 seed after Sharapova crashed out. I presume Nadal is still no. 2, but Djokovic was probably the second most talked about player going into the tournament. And the world no. 1's both win - Federer adding another slam to the record-making list, Henin too, to a lesser extent. Whatever happened in the final, in defeating the Williams sisters, she'd proved a lot.

If Eurosport got the rights to more matches and dropped Frew "Random" Macmillan as a commentator next year, I wouldn't be too upset. The directors weren't as poncey as in the French, (a tennis tournament is not about proving you're an auteur) but I do prefer the bird's eye view of the court rather than the above the player perspective where you can only see one side of the court clearly for the main run of a point. And why were the ballkids wearing a depiction of a polo player on horseback, of all things, on their shirts?

I was watching the some of the men's team competition in the world gymnastic championships last night in lieu of the tennis. Well, I say watching it, but it was something less attentive than that. The language is very technical to someone who only achieved something that fit the definition of 'cartwheel' one in five tries. On a good day.

90 minutes was all we got, again. Sky was showing live tennis. I'm too dispirited to look, but I suspect it'll be the same case today. So all I got to see was titbits of Federer vs. Roddick. Or the sharp ends of sets. Poor Roddick, he played well, and perhaps in the first two sets, it was only a few points that distinguished them, but Federer is a better player than him is a better player than him is a better player than him. Reference was made to the Australian Open dismantling. Well, Federer didn't need to do that here. Roddick is the younger though, didn't he peak earlier?

In lighter vein, I wonder if the both had a 'he decided to wear black too?' moment when they stepped on the court/saw each other first? Davydenko has had a good run, but his previous record against Federer looks terrible.

The Venus vs. Jankovic match looked all over the place, but I'm sure it would have been entertaining to watch properly. I wanted Jankovic to win, I don't like the Willamses, though I'm growing to respect them more and more.

Still, the despairing question of why can't British Eurosport show the doubles or something arises? Is it because of the scheduling matches in the middle of the night thing? (Which still strikes me as crazy and unfair, expecting players and umpires to perform at that time when they're used to playing in the daytime and expecting the viewers to keep up. Silly.)

The tennis has been on, today and yesterday, but I can't say I've been watching it much, being more engrossed in scrapbooking. It's not necessarily a reflection of the quality of the tennis (the match that got most of my attention was the doubles involving We-Know-Him-From-Queens Mahut) but that I didn't care who won. And now they're showing Blake vs. Haas from yesterday. I wonder if they will show Moya's match tomorrow, seeing as they were talking about it all this afternoon. It's patently obvious that the UK distribution deal has fallen in Sky Sports's favour and Eurosport is getting the scraps.

In other news, I have got the last two Swallows and Amazons/Ransomes that I didn't have: Winter Holiday and The Big Six. I've certainly read WH in the past, but it's nice to own the whole collection. And they were cheaper than I was expecting to pay, so bonus on that score as well.

Before I get to the tennis and before I forget, too, I read this review in The Guardian about Singled Out: How Two Million Women Survived Without Men After the First World War by Virginia Nicholson. It sounds like an interesting book about a group of people I hadn't thought much about, though, obviously, they populated (as those Oxbridge graduates who became mistresses unto retirement) and created a lot of girls own stories.

Anyhow, tennis. Much better far from Eurosport. This is partly because players I have some investment in were playing, but I think the quality was higher. The commentator seemed to believe so, and even salting their hyperbole, there was A Major Upset and tension.

First, watching Sharapova losing the first set, go on the aggressive and, almost bully the second set from Radwanska. But then the serve broke down - and in general, I've always sensed Sharapova's vulnerability as a player, even though she has been consistently near the top, there are others with more talent or raw power - as the momentum shifted. Roddick vs. Johanssen wasn't all that of a match, but I like Roddick (especially in interviews) and Johanssen flubbed the part where he had to keep his own serve, and got dispatched for it.

The Federer vs. Isner match was intriguing as they showed him winning against Montfils in the Washington semi-final, reeling off the wins he'd managed to get there. With his extreme height they were trying to make it out to be a fairy story where the giant was the hero, but as Federer was in imperious form, that was shown to be fiction and the giant was, well, not slain, but taught a lesson. Still, what an occasion to play the world no. 1 in your home slam for someone starting out on their career? As Jo Durie noted - and got slapped down for it by her male colleague, who had been rhapsodising about pretty Maria Sharapova's pretty, pretty dress earlier - Isner looked far more boyish than 2. Federer's outfit was, I would like to point out, very flattering, and his tennis was seriously impressive, as was his deconstruction of his opponent's game.

I wasn't going to talk about the tennis, because, last night, I came home to find that Petrova (who?) had won and that Davydenko was easily winning against Kiefer and not holding my attention. (I went off and did something completely different). But I put the tennis on over breakfast and saw Murray vs. Bjorkman. Some delicious tennis there. When Murray was 'on', he was the one in charge, not being afraid of Bjorkman at the net. And some of his winners were very, very impressive shots. (I have just found out that Murray's third round opponent beat a seed, but Murray should still go through to the fourth to fave Davydenko).

Came home, was convinced Nicole Vaidisova was Maris Sharapova from her stance and the way she served. Saw her win. Watched the beginning and end of Djokovic's match. He played blindingly well from what I saw. Hopefully he'll have learned from Wimbledon, where he got to the same position as in the French (yes?) and ran out of steam and may even live up to the hype and make it to the next stage, rattling the duopoly. Interesting that, from what I've seen, people are discounting Nadal, almost. I watched something that was not tennis, then Andy Murray's first round was on and, as I knew the result and had stuff to do, I didn't watch. I really like watching my tennis unspoilt. But I can't see how I'm going to avoid results just so that I can follow Eurosport's programming.

Speaking of things to do, I have them.