TENNIS: Wimbledon week 2
On Monday, they got through all the fourth round matches. I noted that Federer and Nadal progressed smoothly, as did Serena. But there were even fewer ladies’ seeds left, no-one from the much vaunted top 10, although three Grand Slam champions (including Serena) won, and, to my pleasure, Kasakina.
Tuesday featured the women’s quarter finales. As I’d seen Williams play Georges in the French Open, I (rightly) thought the German had little chance. Quality came through in the other half, Ostapenko looks I blistering form, Kasakina confirmed her promise and where she needs to work to improve. My impression was that Kerber needed to be more aggressive.
I thought DelPo, late completing his match, would be tired in the next round.
There were entertaining doubles to while away the evening with.
The men’s quarter finals where when the men’s tournament came to life. Djokovic dropping a set, but coming through was one thing, but Federer, a match point up being taken to five and losing to Anderson was another. He’d been playing so well that even though Anderson was a step up from his previous competition I did not expect it…
And DelPo was not too tired to give Nadal a good match, it looked like. I came home to enjoy the fourth and fifth, and ‘good match’ undersells it. There were dramatic falls, all sorts of shots and scintillating tennis. Their match featured Andy Murray commentating for the first time, while sitting next to wind-up merchant Henman. Murray spoke with authority, but I don’t want him to give up the tennis for commentating yet.
Isner through to his first semis was a big deal, but Nadal versus Djokovic felt like it should be the final. It was a tough route for Nadal.
On Thursday, the ladies semi-finals were over before I had a chance to see them, Ostapenko was disappointing (inexperience was to blame according to the experts), Georges played well and showed why she’d got through, but still didn’t make a dent on the scoreboard. After all the rollercoastering on the ladies side, with much talk of Serena’s comeback and many potential winners, we had a rematch of the 2016 final. I thought it’d be interesting to see whether Williams could deal with the physicality of a full fortnight or whether Kerber could find/maintain the level to beat her.
Anyway, the doubles were entertaining, getting glimpses of the exciting young seed-beaters Clarke and Dart - I think Sam Smith rated her first round performance as a wildcard in the singles. I was impressed by her instincts and how she stood up to male players. Their reward was a semi against Murray and Azarenka, somehow making it through another match.
For the men’s semi finals. I came home early and like everyone I was really looking forward to Nadal vs. Djokovic, with what I thought was all due respect to Anderson and Isner. I thought it would be a matter of who played the tiebreaks better, although having been to this point in a slam before, Anderson had to be the favourite no matter how much Isner had improved. I half-followed the match, seeing Anderson wobble after breaking Isner in the third, saving my concentration for the second match, until we came to the fifth set and it started to dawn on us all that they would not break. Anderson seemed fresher, but he could not get through, and Isner had the advantage of serving first.
I worried about when to get my supper, as the score inched upwards. Inverdale joked about Isner’s infamous previous marathon, but we went into double figures and further in. Every time one saw the scoreboard and length of match or time it became more absurd, and dismaying, because whoever was left standing wasn’t going to do more than that on Sunday. (I think they have to bring in a tie-break in the fifth.)
After an innumerable run of games where he was down 0-30, and served his way out of it, Isner stumbled. Any point where they managed to go beyond two or three shots and ran was rousing, but we had a crazy game - the one where Anderson fell and used his left hand. And he broke, and was able to hold serve, and thus the longest semi ended.
Sensibly, they decided to close the roof and give us a break and more time for the second match. And then the two champions came on for the match we’d been savouring with the knowledge they’d end at 11.
All our questions about where Djokovic was at were answered. He matched Nadal, indeed, outpowered him in the first. Nadal played smart, though, and after Djokovic missed a chance (to break, I think) he took control of the second. I thought he was slightly the better in the third, but Djokovic kept matching him. They were on equal points and went into a tiebreak, made even more dramatic because there’d be no time for anything more, so they were playing for an overnight lead. I felt it should have been Nadal (admittedly, of the two players, he’s my favourite), but after all the chances Nadal had, it was Djokovic who took the set point.
Oo-er.
This meant an earlier Saturday start on Centre Court, with the resumption of the semi final under the roof. And it seemed to be a resumption of the same quality and intensity, only after he’d got out of the first game, Nadal had made adjustments to play the game to his tune. He won the fourth.
I was supporting him, as I generally would - enjoying seeing him at this end of Wimbledon again. Of course, it was also good to see Djokovic back to challenge him so thoroughly after his collapse post winning the French.
Djokovic has the stronger serve and, of course, return. They both kept up the exchange of groundstrokes, with some spectacular rallies. Rafa was better with the dropshot, at net and with overheads, but Djokovic kept returning balls back. In the fifth, we kept seeing how they were equal on the points scored.
We passed 6 all, and the quality didn’t deteriorate, while the tension increased, perhaps buoyed by the possibility that this too would go on to an unbearable length. Rafa had break points, but was mostly not allowed to convert them, though he will rue lost chances. However, because he was serving first, Djokovic’s break points were match points. One couldn’t be sure until he won one of them who would prevail.
He went into the final fresher and the favourite (although after such an intense combat, the first for a while, it might take an emotional toll.) All I had for the South African was that maybe he could serve his way into tiebreaks, but we were reminded of how excellent a returner Djokovic is, and he was back to his best in the semi.
The delayed women’s finals began, and attention turned to the story of the mother and champion looking to add to her tally so quickly after returning to tennis, against a player with her own comeback story. Things of note: Serena hadn’t played against very high-ranked opponents, although her own position made us query rankings, and Georgi was the toughest opponent. This was Kerber’s second Wimbledon final, again facing Williams. She had won two (whereas Serena was chasing records held by Court and Navratilova) and one of them against Williams. Would this and Williams’s lack of matches give her a chance?
For what it’s worth, I was supporting Kerber (she’s a leftie), but expecting Serena to win. I hoped for a match going into a third set, at any rate.
The two players who had won six matches to get here walked on court, and Kerber seemed composed. She had a game plan and executed it well. A few breaks, but more of them by Kerber, and she continued to serve well and return balls, moving Serena about. One set up. But surely Williams would regroup. But she couldn’t. Kerber maintained her standard, flustering her opponent, who mistimed the ball and tried her hardest to get things to click, to go her way, but they wouldn’t. A break. The scoreboard mean that Kerber could win it if she scored a double break, but Williams found her best serving game all match, so it was up to Kerber to serve it out. She later said she was trembling, and you could tell a little in her serve, but she stuck to her guns and won.
I was very glad for her - she deserved it. You felt that the crowd would have gone wilder if it had been Serena or if it had been won in three - but they’d been treated to two sets of Nadal and Djokovic, so it wasn’t all on the women’s finals. Given that none of the last few ladies champions have been able to back it up spectacularly, one hopes Kerber really has learned from 2017. Although if Serena is like this when she’s rusty, you wouldn’t want to be drawn against her in the US Open.
I dipped in and out of the men’s doubles finals, as I hadn’t followed the players (to the point where I wasn’t sure which player was Venus and which Klaasen until the last set.) Of course it went to five, with the last played under the roof because of the lights. As ever, some ratatat points, and an impressive feat by Mike Bryan, given his age.
On Sunday, I saw little of the men’s final. Indeed, I dozed during the first set, then had to leave. I later found out that the inevitable happened, although I’m glad for Anderson he had one competitive set, surely that semi did for his performance and he will always be disappointed at the fact that he couldn’t give of his best. Selfishly, I was relieved that I didn’t miss a classic, but had seen so much of the semis and Nadal vs. Del Potro.
And this week it’s very odd not to turn to the tennis.
This entry was originally posted at https://feather-ghyll.dreamwidth.org/159175.html. Please comment wherever you prefer to.