TENNIS: Wimbledon 2021 - Week 2 (belatedly)
Last sixteen/Round four
At lunch time, Barty v Kraijikova hadn’t started, so I watched a bit of the fourth set between Khatchenov (of whom I always think ‘as played by Liam Hemsworth’) and Sebastian Korda (apparently it went to a lengthy fifth set, which the more experienced and perhaps currently stronger man won. Not yet for Sebastian Korda, then.) I switched to the match on Centre Court, where Kreijikova seemed stronger (but Barty ultimately won in two.)
After work, I saw a very focused, sometimes brilliant Kerber also put young Coco Gauff in her ‘not yet’ place. I may be biased because I’m a leftie, but I got the sense that the last remaining women’s former champion, towards the end of her career, is determined to make the most of it, and after a so-so season, Wimbledon always brings back good memories for her.
Then they kept switching between the Zverev and Double A match (I supported the latter, although it seemed like he didn’t have many answers to an improved Zverev in the third and fourth sets) and Federer against Senagga (I never quite caught where he fits into the span of male Ialian tennis at the moment.) Anyway, the poor thing was facing a vital break point while they closed the roof, lost it, and suddenly Federer was in control. Young Auger Aliassine won in the fifth.
I thought it was a bit mean that they didn’t complete the last men’s singles match on Centre Court, but all attention turned to Court no. 1. This time Raducanu’s parents were there watching, and after the weekend papers, one really was glad she was in the bubble, because it must have protected her somewhat from all the attention now that she’s burst into the public consciousness. Sam Smith and Annabel Croft knew more about her, but Martina Navratilova clearly knew nothing about her. (In the build-up it only seemed as if the third round counted.)
We learned that Tomlianovic is about as Australian as Konta is British (i.e. tennis passports), and boyfriend Bennettini was watching her. Ten years older than her opponent, she was playing for her first grand slam quarter final, while Raducanu was playing for her first nearly everything. At home.
Nervy start, but overall, I saw a competitive match, although Tomlianovic’s experience helped her make good choices in all the break points she faced.She won the first set.
How would Raducanu react at the start of the second? Well, it became obvious, perhaps more on screen, because I think she turned her back on her opponent, that she wasn’t well, stomach, breathing - I didn’t speculate, unlike all the commentators. She was playing points decently for someone who seemed to be trying to hold herself together after them, but the scoreline was 4-0 when she got her medical timeout, went off the court, before it was announced that she’d not be retuning and was retiring.
‘Oh,’ gasped the crowd. ‘But we moved Easteners and everything to BBC Two,’ groaned the BBC. (It was a very different scenario to what had happened in Tomljanovic’s match against Ostapenko.)
Women’s Quarter Finals
I thought I could use iPlayer to watch the QFs at my own pace, but it didn’t work as planned. I managed to watch Pliskova against Golubic in bits, in which I realised that Pliskova had indeed gone under the radar this year, but as she’s failed to get anywhere at Wimbledon in every other year she’s been mentioned, that’s understandable. But this year, she hadn’t dropped a set. As soon as she broke her opponent, I sensed she played with more confidence and assurance, and her movement seems better. It got tough at the end, but she came through, finally, to her first Wimbledon semi.
Apparently none of these women were in the French Open quarter finals, which hasn’t happened since before I was born, and that was attributable to team tennis. 2021 is an unusual year and the pandemic has obviously shaped things, but there is no pretending that women’s tennis hasn’t been volatile for years. This is just a more extreme iteration of that phenomenon with six players in this round for the first time.
Kerber and Muchova were the two who had been here before, and were playing each other. I saw a snippet of this, and knew Kerber had won the first set.
I’d thought about waiting until the afternoon’s play appeared on iPlayer, then did some maths and realised that was unrealistic, so I caved and watched Today at Wimbledon for the rundown instead. None of the quarter finals went to three sets. Jabeur against Sabalenka had seemed like the tastiest prospect, because of the contrast in styles, but the no. 2 seed, the current highest ranked player who hadn’t done well in slams until now, had too much power.
I’m trying to fight my tendency to favour whoever wins the other semi to win the final, becuase WOMEN’S TENNIS, but Barty thrashed her lower ranked fellow Aussie, and both she and Kerber are playing well now, and that is an intriguing semi.
It had been announced that Emma Raducanu had had breathing difficulties the previous night, possibly hyperventilation because of the occasion. I felt sorry for her parents, but hopeful she’ll get the right support to deal with it. May the next steps in her career help her build up resilience and the best foundations for whatever comes next.
Medvedev couldn’t win. It looks like the Khatchanov v Shapavalov match will be the most competitive.
Men’s Quarter finals
I finally figued out that by watching the ‘No. 1 Court live’ stream, I could pause it and then come back to matches as it suited me, which meant that I saw most of both the quarters played on he no. 1 court. I was right, Khatchanov vs Shapavalov was the most competitive, whith the Russian responding to Shapavalov winning the first set by keeping up his intensity while Shapavalov relaxed just a little and paid for it. The third set was good, I zipped through the fourth set and was surprised by how Shapavalov zipped through it too. Khatchanov dug deep (I think the commentary rightly used the word ‘valiant’), but Shapavalov was winning his serve far more easily, while Khatchanov looked more tired. My take out was that Shapavalov is the more talented player of the two, and showed his positivity and growing maturity by taking that step into a grand slam semi final now.
I then watched the Berrettini and Auger Aliassine match, and the first two sets weren’t that much fun. The fact that they were close friends added tension (let us never pretend that watching Venus against Serena Williams in their finals was fun) as did the nerves of the occasion. Berrettini was the better player in the first set, his opponent in the second, but nether were playing well at the same time or playing well enough for long enough to string points together. The third set was more competitive, and Berrettini played the big pints better, and continued to do so in the fourth. As someone who’s practiced with him a lot some of his serve’s potency didn’t work for Auger aliassine.
Having heard that Federer had lost in three (IN THREE) while Djokovic had won in the same number of sets, I wanted to see the round up of the Federer match on Today at Wimbleon. Which I did, and learned it was a getting old, not having the energy day, while Hercacz was certainly capable enough of taking advantage of that. (I hadn’t heard of him beyond his flinging a banana to his opponent, although he is in thetop 20.) I’d thought Berrettini should be the favourite in their semi, but the pundits say perhaps not. Anyway, it’s a brilliant opportunity for both of them, while Shapavlov can pretend and should pretend to himself that he has a chance of getting through to the final - but realistically, he’s just going to get an indication of where his game is at. However, Djokovic and Federer aside, this was a chance for the men who weren’t the first names that were cited as part of the Next Gen, and in the Canadians the generation after them, to shine.
Woman’s semis
Again, was able to watch both on my own steam. Two different matches in flavour, with a well-liked world number 1 who has been improving match by match against a lefty former champion (indeed, they were saying Kerber has the best record on grass after the Williams, sisters of current players I suppose, and props to the relative veteran) who’s rediscovered her form. But a nervous start cost her, and Barty had just enough to win the first and seem in charge.
Tasty rallies, with Sam and Tracy cooin over Barty’s shots in particular, bu increasingly Kerber’s, as she fought back hard, and was up 5-2, but could not win the next game. Barty grabbed the momentum back and played an excellent tiebreak, until Kerber stopped the rot at 6-0 but with so many match points and Barty finding her forehand, was only delaying the inevitable. A classy semi.
The other, we knew, would be a different match - take your pick between ‘Biff! Bosh!’ and ‘Wham! Bam!’ Far fewer rallies, obviously. Sebastova is new to people like me who just follow more Grand Slams than Wimbledon (and get snobby about people who think that Wimbledon = tennis, even though they don’t watch many WTA events), the no. 2 seed, ranked no. 4, against Piskova, one of the many Czech players, and someowne who had never delivered at Wimbledon despite having the game fo grass, which was why she’d gone under the radar (that, and she hadn’t faced anyone in the top 50 yet, although that’s not to say they were weak players, necessarily).
Sebastova is so expressive (and loud) that she demands attention, and I found myself liking her a lot - her frustration was all about her play. But if you paid attention to the tennis, not only was Pliskova’s serve as strong as it had been all tournament, but she was pushing Sebatova on her serve, it was just that Sevastova was saving her best tennis for break points, especially at 5-love-40. She then went on to beat a frustrated Pliskova in the next game, winning the first set when she had absolutely no right to.
But 2021 Pliskova did not collapse, did not get negative, remembered all the good (if unrewarded) things she’d been doing, pluged at it, and broke early in the second. Her serve continued to be untroubled (although Sebastova beat her on the ace count, Pliskova’s points won on both serves count was excellent) she was capable of matching Sebatova on the power (although she is a far more self-contained and quiet player) and her movement and attitude towards getting the ball back was improved. Perhaps she hadn’t been tested so far in the tournament, but then, you can only play the opponents in front of you, but against a very good player, she showed throughout in what very fine form she was.
Sebastova has had her grand slam breakthrough. She probably knows what she needs to work on - she’s still in her early twenties - so (with the usual ‘women’s tennis’ caveat) I wouldn’t be surprised if she now does well at the slams, especially Wimbledon. But it was really sweet to see an assured Pliskova’s game finally come together as we’d thought it might, but all but given up on happening, on grass. It sets up an enticing final (with less hard work trying to inform you of who these ladies are than at the French as they’re the no. 1 and 9 seeds).
Men’s semi-finals
I was again able to watch both semis (give or take a few points after impatient fast-forwarding on my part, and, if I’m honest, I was following the first matchmore closely.)
I’d thought it woud be Berrettini (and as I’d seen more of him and liked what I’d seen, I was supporting him) over Hercacz and his all-aroud game. As it turned out, Berrettini’s experience of having been in a Grand Slam semi before helped. As did THAT serve. He was pressing for break points from early on, got a break, and then started a run, taking advantage of Hercacz really going off the boil, and playing himself into better and better form. The forehand is the weapon, but he was using the backhand well too and moving better than McEnroe had seen hm apparently, while in the second set Hercacz could not construct a point, and got bagelled.
After a toilet break, the Hercacz we’d expected to turn up for the match turned for the third set, with the crowd on side - a bit of underdog supporting to extend the match, a bit of ‘well, f he beat FEDERER, he must be good’ and Berrettini only got within two points of winning the match and his nerves showed in a couple of points - he was never in the tiebreak.
But he regrouped well in the fourth, showed he was the better player, broke, and always had the comfort of THAT serve. He definitely earned his place in the final, his first, and there’s now a new Next Genner they’ll have to talk about.
(The editors are perfectly aware of the devastating effect of Berrettini looking upwards. He’s utterly charming when he speaks. Oh, and although one shouldn’t be amused by another’s discomfort, his father’s inability to watch him play, because he was sonervous, was a bit amusing.)
And so, Shapavalov’s first grand slam semi-final, Djokovic’s eleventy-billioneth, probably enjoying the fact that it wasn’t Nadal, Federer or Murray on the other side of the net, just a very talented guy twelve years his junior. And Shapavalov turned up swinging, after midway through his first service game, at any rate.
And the crowd were on his side, parly because he was the underdog, partly because they haven’t taken Djokovic to heart entirely and partly because Shapavalov has charmed even though he beat Murray. Oh, and his play is attractive, with the aggeression, the willingness to come in, the single-handed backhand.
All were on display in the first set. He broke. Djokovic was there, but not in his full pomp. But Shapavalov could not serve it out.
And this would be the pattern - the break points won were excreceable - Djokovic cold reconise the big points and lift his game enough in them, while Shapavalov sometimes went off the boil during them. He was playing great in the first two sets, but got no reward for it.
I always thought this match would show him where his game is at, and hopefully he will learn much from it, because he’s obviously grown up and started to harness all his talent to get this far. But Djokovic didn’t need to be at his best (as he had to be in the semi at the French against Nadal) and still got through, but then, he’s chasing history. (I think he’ll have to pay better against Berrettini if the Italian turns up without nerves and his serve is at its Wimbledon standard, although actually, seeing the best returner in the world take THAT serve on will be fun. I would imagine a meeting on grass after the run of wins Berrettini has had is going to b a different proposition to the quarters in the French, but we shall see.)
I watched the talky bits of Today at Wimbledon - unsurprisingly John McEnroe’s filmed introduction to the Djokovic match was much better than Boris Becker’s. I mention that, because as part of the build-up to the ladies final, they had Miriam Margoyles reading a piece about the history of how women were seen/treated in sport/as ladies champion, which ended up feeling rather like feminism lite to me.
Final Saturday
Anyway, there was a lot of build-up, with the usual suspects, who basically confused me as to which player they thought it would help if the roof remained closed. As it happened, the roof stayed open all match. Actually it was almost the ususal suspects, McEnroe was brought in (which is fine if they bring in Navratilova or whoever to opine on the men) and joined the perfectly strong commentating team of Sam Smith and Trcey Austin.
Anyway, after all that build-up, there was a horrible sensation as play started and it was clear that Pliskova was filled with nerves. Her serve was abysmal by her standards, and she couldn’t get a point until something like the fifth game. Barty just had to hit the ball more or less where she intended and say ‘thank you very much.’ Barty was also nervous throughout, I thought.
Pliskova began winning points, finding something like her serve, weight of shot and length, so when Barty broke her in the second set, she was able to fight back, and fight back into something like the player we’d seen at the semis. (Comparisons with having lost the first set of the semis are misleading, because Pliskova was fully engaged and the overall best player then.) Like the crowd, I was willing her to find her game to make it more like a match and less humiliating. As she did so and won the tiebreak to win the second set, I realised that I still wanted Pliskova to win (I’d thought I would be neutral, because I had forgotten how I am when watching sports). I think some of it is because she is the more naturally aggressive player. But Barty scrambled and fought, and kept protecting her break in the third. In fairness, I had been thinking about the mantle of destiny - of her having won Junior Wimbedon, of it being fifty years since her mentor had won, of her being the current no. 1 seed who everyone had said ought to win Wimbledon one day - despite all the volatility in the women’s game. And after coming to Wimbledon not sure if she’d fully recovered from her injury, having gained perspective from her own particular experiences and the pandemic, as she’s referenced so particulately - good on her.
A part of me thinks that Pliskova must take the positives from this, she did fight the nerves, better than she apparently did at Rome, and if she’d been able to play the high-quality game she’d played all tournament at the start of the final, the result might have been different. Yes, at 29, she’s older, but with Serena and Venus and Kerber’s examples, she’s got a few years in her yet, and as good a chance as anyone.
I dipped in and out of the doubles’ finals to be honest. A good point was made about needing to start proceedings earlier than 2 o’clock in future (I stopped watching the men’s doubles in the middle of the fourth set) and the same old converstaion about why the best singles players won’t play doubles (because tennis is more physically demanding these days?) and how that ard diminishing prize money and respect are a vicious cycle.
Final Sunday
Again, a lot of build-up, in which Pat Cash’s metaphor, despite playing on the infamous traffic light system felt informative and fresh. No women, but there would be one in the umpire’s seat, (and where she had to get involved, she did it well.)
In the first few games, Berrettini was clearly affected by nerves, perhaps not as badly as Pliskova, but for a good long while, he was missing makeable shots and clearly hadn’t found his range or serve. The lengthy ten-minute game to keep his serve and stop the rot helped him become more like the player we’d seen all tournament and fight to push Djokovic to a tie-break, which he won. Djokovic was unsettled throughout that set, but getting away with it more.
However, you can’t fault Djokovic’s respons at the start of the next set. He broke Berettini and never really let him take advantage of any pressure or break points. Berettini had found his serve, although he had fewer easier service games than he’d had in most matches, with Djokovic not only returning some boomers but returning them well enough to nullify the weapon.
Same thing in the third, same in the fourth, even though there were patches where Djokovic wasn’t quite as imperious as you thought he might be, trying dropshots at the wrong time or making other shot selections that puzzled the commentators. But Berrettini made errors, too.
The crowd support was interesting, I always thought they’d favour Berrettini, because he’s introduced himself so well this grass court season, with a big serve and forehand, but I think that smile counts as a weapon too. The problem Djokovic has (apart from confusing popularitiy with respect) is that his game is not as attractive as stylish Federer’s or weapon-loaded Nadal, or here, Berrettini. Well, Djokovic’s net play was generally better, and of course his athleticism and flexibility are impressive, but I have never found his game that attractive. And of course he gets irritated when the crowd loudly chant this newcomer’s first name in rapture, which makes some of them worse, but some of it is supporting the underdog too, and that Sunday, I think many English people were saying ‘Italy can win this one, and then we can win the next one.’
But Djokovic was the rapturous victor. He spoke well (if lengthily). The fact that this was his sixth Wimbledon title struck me, because the 20 has been mentioned so much - we knew it was on after the French. And yes, it is staggering that he has equalled Federer and Nadal, has to be the favourite for the US Open…and to be at the top for several years more. He’s younger and currently fitter. Were Rafa and Roer watching?
Yes, Berrettini can dare to dream, he’s probably proved to himself how good he can be, perhaps the next time he’s at a grand slam final he will be better prepared, as he was the second time he played a grand slam semi final here. Can his improving trajectory continue? If he’s going to be a champion, he’ll have to improve on what he now knows he needs to improve on. He’s proved himself worthy of being talked about along Medvedev, Tsitispas and Zverev (Thiem has the bragging rights of being the only not Djokovic or Nadal winner of late.) And we’ll have to see how Murray and the younger guns do.
BUT Djokovic wasn’t always playing brilliantly in one sense, all tournament. Didn’t need to, wasn’t facing Nadal or Federer in his pomp. It wasn’t perhaps as marked as in the semi against Shapavalov (Berrettini was able to win the first set after all), but he recognised the important points and elevated his play then. Kudos.
The mixed doubles was a nice after for me - the perfect length (I started watching it at 9 pm), zippy entertaining points, with the fascinating edge of Krawczyk and Salisbury having won the French together, but now on opposing sides because he’d already agreed to play at Wimbledon with Dart (who was probably the weakest at the net, but every time her slow, weak woman’s serve beat Skupski, I laughed.)
Krawczyk and Skupski were the better players in the first set, but the other team rallied and fought throughout the second. The tiebreak was a separate beast, and there were finally some tears on Centre Court for the very last time after a year that was extra special - seeing Djokovic’s name as the winner for 2021 after 2019, was a reminder.
I’ve been trying to fend off my tennis withdrawal by reminding myself that there will be tennis at the Tokyo Olympics (if they go on, because every other day another player seems to be withdrawing, some because they’ve contracted COVID-19.) This entry was originally posted at https://feather-ghyll.dreamwidth.org/187686.html. Please comment wherever you prefer to.
At lunch time, Barty v Kraijikova hadn’t started, so I watched a bit of the fourth set between Khatchenov (of whom I always think ‘as played by Liam Hemsworth’) and Sebastian Korda (apparently it went to a lengthy fifth set, which the more experienced and perhaps currently stronger man won. Not yet for Sebastian Korda, then.) I switched to the match on Centre Court, where Kreijikova seemed stronger (but Barty ultimately won in two.)
After work, I saw a very focused, sometimes brilliant Kerber also put young Coco Gauff in her ‘not yet’ place. I may be biased because I’m a leftie, but I got the sense that the last remaining women’s former champion, towards the end of her career, is determined to make the most of it, and after a so-so season, Wimbledon always brings back good memories for her.
Then they kept switching between the Zverev and Double A match (I supported the latter, although it seemed like he didn’t have many answers to an improved Zverev in the third and fourth sets) and Federer against Senagga (I never quite caught where he fits into the span of male Ialian tennis at the moment.) Anyway, the poor thing was facing a vital break point while they closed the roof, lost it, and suddenly Federer was in control. Young Auger Aliassine won in the fifth.
I thought it was a bit mean that they didn’t complete the last men’s singles match on Centre Court, but all attention turned to Court no. 1. This time Raducanu’s parents were there watching, and after the weekend papers, one really was glad she was in the bubble, because it must have protected her somewhat from all the attention now that she’s burst into the public consciousness. Sam Smith and Annabel Croft knew more about her, but Martina Navratilova clearly knew nothing about her. (In the build-up it only seemed as if the third round counted.)
We learned that Tomlianovic is about as Australian as Konta is British (i.e. tennis passports), and boyfriend Bennettini was watching her. Ten years older than her opponent, she was playing for her first grand slam quarter final, while Raducanu was playing for her first nearly everything. At home.
Nervy start, but overall, I saw a competitive match, although Tomlianovic’s experience helped her make good choices in all the break points she faced.She won the first set.
How would Raducanu react at the start of the second? Well, it became obvious, perhaps more on screen, because I think she turned her back on her opponent, that she wasn’t well, stomach, breathing - I didn’t speculate, unlike all the commentators. She was playing points decently for someone who seemed to be trying to hold herself together after them, but the scoreline was 4-0 when she got her medical timeout, went off the court, before it was announced that she’d not be retuning and was retiring.
‘Oh,’ gasped the crowd. ‘But we moved Easteners and everything to BBC Two,’ groaned the BBC. (It was a very different scenario to what had happened in Tomljanovic’s match against Ostapenko.)
Women’s Quarter Finals
I thought I could use iPlayer to watch the QFs at my own pace, but it didn’t work as planned. I managed to watch Pliskova against Golubic in bits, in which I realised that Pliskova had indeed gone under the radar this year, but as she’s failed to get anywhere at Wimbledon in every other year she’s been mentioned, that’s understandable. But this year, she hadn’t dropped a set. As soon as she broke her opponent, I sensed she played with more confidence and assurance, and her movement seems better. It got tough at the end, but she came through, finally, to her first Wimbledon semi.
Apparently none of these women were in the French Open quarter finals, which hasn’t happened since before I was born, and that was attributable to team tennis. 2021 is an unusual year and the pandemic has obviously shaped things, but there is no pretending that women’s tennis hasn’t been volatile for years. This is just a more extreme iteration of that phenomenon with six players in this round for the first time.
Kerber and Muchova were the two who had been here before, and were playing each other. I saw a snippet of this, and knew Kerber had won the first set.
I’d thought about waiting until the afternoon’s play appeared on iPlayer, then did some maths and realised that was unrealistic, so I caved and watched Today at Wimbledon for the rundown instead. None of the quarter finals went to three sets. Jabeur against Sabalenka had seemed like the tastiest prospect, because of the contrast in styles, but the no. 2 seed, the current highest ranked player who hadn’t done well in slams until now, had too much power.
I’m trying to fight my tendency to favour whoever wins the other semi to win the final, becuase WOMEN’S TENNIS, but Barty thrashed her lower ranked fellow Aussie, and both she and Kerber are playing well now, and that is an intriguing semi.
It had been announced that Emma Raducanu had had breathing difficulties the previous night, possibly hyperventilation because of the occasion. I felt sorry for her parents, but hopeful she’ll get the right support to deal with it. May the next steps in her career help her build up resilience and the best foundations for whatever comes next.
Medvedev couldn’t win. It looks like the Khatchanov v Shapavalov match will be the most competitive.
Men’s Quarter finals
I finally figued out that by watching the ‘No. 1 Court live’ stream, I could pause it and then come back to matches as it suited me, which meant that I saw most of both the quarters played on he no. 1 court. I was right, Khatchanov vs Shapavalov was the most competitive, whith the Russian responding to Shapavalov winning the first set by keeping up his intensity while Shapavalov relaxed just a little and paid for it. The third set was good, I zipped through the fourth set and was surprised by how Shapavalov zipped through it too. Khatchanov dug deep (I think the commentary rightly used the word ‘valiant’), but Shapavalov was winning his serve far more easily, while Khatchanov looked more tired. My take out was that Shapavalov is the more talented player of the two, and showed his positivity and growing maturity by taking that step into a grand slam semi final now.
I then watched the Berrettini and Auger Aliassine match, and the first two sets weren’t that much fun. The fact that they were close friends added tension (let us never pretend that watching Venus against Serena Williams in their finals was fun) as did the nerves of the occasion. Berrettini was the better player in the first set, his opponent in the second, but nether were playing well at the same time or playing well enough for long enough to string points together. The third set was more competitive, and Berrettini played the big pints better, and continued to do so in the fourth. As someone who’s practiced with him a lot some of his serve’s potency didn’t work for Auger aliassine.
Having heard that Federer had lost in three (IN THREE) while Djokovic had won in the same number of sets, I wanted to see the round up of the Federer match on Today at Wimbleon. Which I did, and learned it was a getting old, not having the energy day, while Hercacz was certainly capable enough of taking advantage of that. (I hadn’t heard of him beyond his flinging a banana to his opponent, although he is in thetop 20.) I’d thought Berrettini should be the favourite in their semi, but the pundits say perhaps not. Anyway, it’s a brilliant opportunity for both of them, while Shapavlov can pretend and should pretend to himself that he has a chance of getting through to the final - but realistically, he’s just going to get an indication of where his game is at. However, Djokovic and Federer aside, this was a chance for the men who weren’t the first names that were cited as part of the Next Gen, and in the Canadians the generation after them, to shine.
Woman’s semis
Again, was able to watch both on my own steam. Two different matches in flavour, with a well-liked world number 1 who has been improving match by match against a lefty former champion (indeed, they were saying Kerber has the best record on grass after the Williams, sisters of current players I suppose, and props to the relative veteran) who’s rediscovered her form. But a nervous start cost her, and Barty had just enough to win the first and seem in charge.
Tasty rallies, with Sam and Tracy cooin over Barty’s shots in particular, bu increasingly Kerber’s, as she fought back hard, and was up 5-2, but could not win the next game. Barty grabbed the momentum back and played an excellent tiebreak, until Kerber stopped the rot at 6-0 but with so many match points and Barty finding her forehand, was only delaying the inevitable. A classy semi.
The other, we knew, would be a different match - take your pick between ‘Biff! Bosh!’ and ‘Wham! Bam!’ Far fewer rallies, obviously. Sebastova is new to people like me who just follow more Grand Slams than Wimbledon (and get snobby about people who think that Wimbledon = tennis, even though they don’t watch many WTA events), the no. 2 seed, ranked no. 4, against Piskova, one of the many Czech players, and someowne who had never delivered at Wimbledon despite having the game fo grass, which was why she’d gone under the radar (that, and she hadn’t faced anyone in the top 50 yet, although that’s not to say they were weak players, necessarily).
Sebastova is so expressive (and loud) that she demands attention, and I found myself liking her a lot - her frustration was all about her play. But if you paid attention to the tennis, not only was Pliskova’s serve as strong as it had been all tournament, but she was pushing Sebatova on her serve, it was just that Sevastova was saving her best tennis for break points, especially at 5-love-40. She then went on to beat a frustrated Pliskova in the next game, winning the first set when she had absolutely no right to.
But 2021 Pliskova did not collapse, did not get negative, remembered all the good (if unrewarded) things she’d been doing, pluged at it, and broke early in the second. Her serve continued to be untroubled (although Sebastova beat her on the ace count, Pliskova’s points won on both serves count was excellent) she was capable of matching Sebatova on the power (although she is a far more self-contained and quiet player) and her movement and attitude towards getting the ball back was improved. Perhaps she hadn’t been tested so far in the tournament, but then, you can only play the opponents in front of you, but against a very good player, she showed throughout in what very fine form she was.
Sebastova has had her grand slam breakthrough. She probably knows what she needs to work on - she’s still in her early twenties - so (with the usual ‘women’s tennis’ caveat) I wouldn’t be surprised if she now does well at the slams, especially Wimbledon. But it was really sweet to see an assured Pliskova’s game finally come together as we’d thought it might, but all but given up on happening, on grass. It sets up an enticing final (with less hard work trying to inform you of who these ladies are than at the French as they’re the no. 1 and 9 seeds).
Men’s semi-finals
I was again able to watch both semis (give or take a few points after impatient fast-forwarding on my part, and, if I’m honest, I was following the first matchmore closely.)
I’d thought it woud be Berrettini (and as I’d seen more of him and liked what I’d seen, I was supporting him) over Hercacz and his all-aroud game. As it turned out, Berrettini’s experience of having been in a Grand Slam semi before helped. As did THAT serve. He was pressing for break points from early on, got a break, and then started a run, taking advantage of Hercacz really going off the boil, and playing himself into better and better form. The forehand is the weapon, but he was using the backhand well too and moving better than McEnroe had seen hm apparently, while in the second set Hercacz could not construct a point, and got bagelled.
After a toilet break, the Hercacz we’d expected to turn up for the match turned for the third set, with the crowd on side - a bit of underdog supporting to extend the match, a bit of ‘well, f he beat FEDERER, he must be good’ and Berrettini only got within two points of winning the match and his nerves showed in a couple of points - he was never in the tiebreak.
But he regrouped well in the fourth, showed he was the better player, broke, and always had the comfort of THAT serve. He definitely earned his place in the final, his first, and there’s now a new Next Genner they’ll have to talk about.
(The editors are perfectly aware of the devastating effect of Berrettini looking upwards. He’s utterly charming when he speaks. Oh, and although one shouldn’t be amused by another’s discomfort, his father’s inability to watch him play, because he was sonervous, was a bit amusing.)
And so, Shapavalov’s first grand slam semi-final, Djokovic’s eleventy-billioneth, probably enjoying the fact that it wasn’t Nadal, Federer or Murray on the other side of the net, just a very talented guy twelve years his junior. And Shapavalov turned up swinging, after midway through his first service game, at any rate.
And the crowd were on his side, parly because he was the underdog, partly because they haven’t taken Djokovic to heart entirely and partly because Shapavalov has charmed even though he beat Murray. Oh, and his play is attractive, with the aggeression, the willingness to come in, the single-handed backhand.
All were on display in the first set. He broke. Djokovic was there, but not in his full pomp. But Shapavalov could not serve it out.
And this would be the pattern - the break points won were excreceable - Djokovic cold reconise the big points and lift his game enough in them, while Shapavalov sometimes went off the boil during them. He was playing great in the first two sets, but got no reward for it.
I always thought this match would show him where his game is at, and hopefully he will learn much from it, because he’s obviously grown up and started to harness all his talent to get this far. But Djokovic didn’t need to be at his best (as he had to be in the semi at the French against Nadal) and still got through, but then, he’s chasing history. (I think he’ll have to pay better against Berrettini if the Italian turns up without nerves and his serve is at its Wimbledon standard, although actually, seeing the best returner in the world take THAT serve on will be fun. I would imagine a meeting on grass after the run of wins Berrettini has had is going to b a different proposition to the quarters in the French, but we shall see.)
I watched the talky bits of Today at Wimbledon - unsurprisingly John McEnroe’s filmed introduction to the Djokovic match was much better than Boris Becker’s. I mention that, because as part of the build-up to the ladies final, they had Miriam Margoyles reading a piece about the history of how women were seen/treated in sport/as ladies champion, which ended up feeling rather like feminism lite to me.
Final Saturday
Anyway, there was a lot of build-up, with the usual suspects, who basically confused me as to which player they thought it would help if the roof remained closed. As it happened, the roof stayed open all match. Actually it was almost the ususal suspects, McEnroe was brought in (which is fine if they bring in Navratilova or whoever to opine on the men) and joined the perfectly strong commentating team of Sam Smith and Trcey Austin.
Anyway, after all that build-up, there was a horrible sensation as play started and it was clear that Pliskova was filled with nerves. Her serve was abysmal by her standards, and she couldn’t get a point until something like the fifth game. Barty just had to hit the ball more or less where she intended and say ‘thank you very much.’ Barty was also nervous throughout, I thought.
Pliskova began winning points, finding something like her serve, weight of shot and length, so when Barty broke her in the second set, she was able to fight back, and fight back into something like the player we’d seen at the semis. (Comparisons with having lost the first set of the semis are misleading, because Pliskova was fully engaged and the overall best player then.) Like the crowd, I was willing her to find her game to make it more like a match and less humiliating. As she did so and won the tiebreak to win the second set, I realised that I still wanted Pliskova to win (I’d thought I would be neutral, because I had forgotten how I am when watching sports). I think some of it is because she is the more naturally aggressive player. But Barty scrambled and fought, and kept protecting her break in the third. In fairness, I had been thinking about the mantle of destiny - of her having won Junior Wimbedon, of it being fifty years since her mentor had won, of her being the current no. 1 seed who everyone had said ought to win Wimbledon one day - despite all the volatility in the women’s game. And after coming to Wimbledon not sure if she’d fully recovered from her injury, having gained perspective from her own particular experiences and the pandemic, as she’s referenced so particulately - good on her.
A part of me thinks that Pliskova must take the positives from this, she did fight the nerves, better than she apparently did at Rome, and if she’d been able to play the high-quality game she’d played all tournament at the start of the final, the result might have been different. Yes, at 29, she’s older, but with Serena and Venus and Kerber’s examples, she’s got a few years in her yet, and as good a chance as anyone.
I dipped in and out of the doubles’ finals to be honest. A good point was made about needing to start proceedings earlier than 2 o’clock in future (I stopped watching the men’s doubles in the middle of the fourth set) and the same old converstaion about why the best singles players won’t play doubles (because tennis is more physically demanding these days?) and how that ard diminishing prize money and respect are a vicious cycle.
Final Sunday
Again, a lot of build-up, in which Pat Cash’s metaphor, despite playing on the infamous traffic light system felt informative and fresh. No women, but there would be one in the umpire’s seat, (and where she had to get involved, she did it well.)
In the first few games, Berrettini was clearly affected by nerves, perhaps not as badly as Pliskova, but for a good long while, he was missing makeable shots and clearly hadn’t found his range or serve. The lengthy ten-minute game to keep his serve and stop the rot helped him become more like the player we’d seen all tournament and fight to push Djokovic to a tie-break, which he won. Djokovic was unsettled throughout that set, but getting away with it more.
However, you can’t fault Djokovic’s respons at the start of the next set. He broke Berettini and never really let him take advantage of any pressure or break points. Berettini had found his serve, although he had fewer easier service games than he’d had in most matches, with Djokovic not only returning some boomers but returning them well enough to nullify the weapon.
Same thing in the third, same in the fourth, even though there were patches where Djokovic wasn’t quite as imperious as you thought he might be, trying dropshots at the wrong time or making other shot selections that puzzled the commentators. But Berrettini made errors, too.
The crowd support was interesting, I always thought they’d favour Berrettini, because he’s introduced himself so well this grass court season, with a big serve and forehand, but I think that smile counts as a weapon too. The problem Djokovic has (apart from confusing popularitiy with respect) is that his game is not as attractive as stylish Federer’s or weapon-loaded Nadal, or here, Berrettini. Well, Djokovic’s net play was generally better, and of course his athleticism and flexibility are impressive, but I have never found his game that attractive. And of course he gets irritated when the crowd loudly chant this newcomer’s first name in rapture, which makes some of them worse, but some of it is supporting the underdog too, and that Sunday, I think many English people were saying ‘Italy can win this one, and then we can win the next one.’
But Djokovic was the rapturous victor. He spoke well (if lengthily). The fact that this was his sixth Wimbledon title struck me, because the 20 has been mentioned so much - we knew it was on after the French. And yes, it is staggering that he has equalled Federer and Nadal, has to be the favourite for the US Open…and to be at the top for several years more. He’s younger and currently fitter. Were Rafa and Roer watching?
Yes, Berrettini can dare to dream, he’s probably proved to himself how good he can be, perhaps the next time he’s at a grand slam final he will be better prepared, as he was the second time he played a grand slam semi final here. Can his improving trajectory continue? If he’s going to be a champion, he’ll have to improve on what he now knows he needs to improve on. He’s proved himself worthy of being talked about along Medvedev, Tsitispas and Zverev (Thiem has the bragging rights of being the only not Djokovic or Nadal winner of late.) And we’ll have to see how Murray and the younger guns do.
BUT Djokovic wasn’t always playing brilliantly in one sense, all tournament. Didn’t need to, wasn’t facing Nadal or Federer in his pomp. It wasn’t perhaps as marked as in the semi against Shapavalov (Berrettini was able to win the first set after all), but he recognised the important points and elevated his play then. Kudos.
The mixed doubles was a nice after for me - the perfect length (I started watching it at 9 pm), zippy entertaining points, with the fascinating edge of Krawczyk and Salisbury having won the French together, but now on opposing sides because he’d already agreed to play at Wimbledon with Dart (who was probably the weakest at the net, but every time her slow, weak woman’s serve beat Skupski, I laughed.)
Krawczyk and Skupski were the better players in the first set, but the other team rallied and fought throughout the second. The tiebreak was a separate beast, and there were finally some tears on Centre Court for the very last time after a year that was extra special - seeing Djokovic’s name as the winner for 2021 after 2019, was a reminder.
I’ve been trying to fend off my tennis withdrawal by reminding myself that there will be tennis at the Tokyo Olympics (if they go on, because every other day another player seems to be withdrawing, some because they’ve contracted COVID-19.) This entry was originally posted at https://feather-ghyll.dreamwidth.org/187686.html. Please comment wherever you prefer to.