A Preview of Coming Attractions?

---

---

I am a football fan, and, at this time of the year, my weekends are typically spent with my TV tuned to football games, but I must admit that yesterday afternoon I periodically monitored ESPN's coverage of the WTA finals in Istanbul.

I found it compelling. Wimbledon champ Petra Kvitova defeated Victoria Azarenka to clinch her first WTA title.

The match also decided who would be ranked second in the world behind Caroline Wozniacki — who won no Grand Slams this year and, in fact, lost to Kvitova last week.

Reportedly, Wozniacki was ailing — and things might well have been different if she had been healthy. She lost to Kvitova in straight sets and managed to win only six games — not the kind of performance one would expect from the world's top–ranked player.

Anyway, Wozniacki secured the top spot in the WTA's ranking system when Maria Sharapova had to withdraw with an ankle injury. And then the Kvitova–Azarenka match was guaranteed to result in the #2 ranking for the winner. Azarenka, who was ranked fourth going into the match, moved up one spot to third and Sharapova dropped to fourth.

This brings me to the really compelling part — what will this mean when the first Grand Slam event of 2012, the Australian Open, commences in January?

Wozniacki made it to last year's semifinals in Australia. Kvitova fell in the quarterfinals, and Azarenka didn't make it out of her section. Neither did Sharapova.

I'm not really sure what significance that will have — if any — in Australia.

Kvitova, though, seems to have momentum on her side. She won Wimbledon, as I said before, and she won the WTA championship to wrap up the year. It is reasonable to conclude that she will be a force to reckon with in Melbourne.

I haven't been this intrigued by women's tennis since the Evert–Navratilova days.

Breakfast at Wimbledon

---

---

For me, it was like old times.

When I was a child, I remember that my mother always made a production of the women's singles final at Wimbledon. She would get up early on the designated Saturday, prepare bowls of fresh strawberries and cream, the traditional Wimbledon snack, and we would watch the final on TV together.

I guess my earliest such memory is of watching Billie Jean King win it all. I'm not sure which year that was — she won it six times.

Sometimes my younger brother would join us, but mostly it was just my mother and me.

Anyway, yesterday morning I got up early to watch Maria Sharapova take on Petra Kvitova. As I say, it was like old times — except no strawberries and cream. And no Mom.

It differed in another way, too. The person I was pulling for did not win.

I was rooting for Sharapova. I've been a fan of hers since she won Wimbledon seven years ago. Since that day, she struggled to get back to the final, eventually overcoming injuries and inconsistent play; I have found her persistence admirable, even inspiring, a metaphor for our times.

The world needs inspiring people today — and I thought folks could find inspiration in Sharapova's gritty push to re–claim the Wimbledon crown.

But — almost in spite of myself — I found Kvitova's dogged determination inspiring, too.

Even though she had been seeded eighth, Kvitova proved that she is a force with which the others must contend. She is only 21. They can expect her to be around for awhile.

In many ways, Kvitova is, as Mark Hodgkinson of The Telegraph writes, the anti–Maria. A lot of folks are put off by her much–publicized shrieking on the court. They just can't warm up to it.

I think one of the things that drew people to Sharapova when she won Wimbledon in 2004 was her youth and apparent innocence. There was talk at the time of how she would shriek on court, but lots of folks seemed to overlook it.

Perhaps they were willing to do so because she was so young, and people were inclined to think it was simply a youthful anomaly — something she would outgrow.

She was young, all right (17), but she might not have been as innocent as many folks may have wanted to believe. As at least one sports journalist observed recently, when Sharapova was something of a prodigy at the age of 13, she was asked if she would rather get multi–million–dollar endorsements or a Wimbledon championship.

She replied that she would prefer to win Wimbledon — because, if she did that, the rest would follow.

That suggests not the dreamy ambition that is typical of the young — but the cold, calculated conclusion of a much more mature person.

Kvitova comes to the spotlight older and, presumably, more mature than Sharapova was when she won Wimbledon, but their accomplishments were similar. Both upset established (and favored) foes.

Now, we will see if it takes longer for Kvitova to return to the championship than it took Sharapova — or whether, for that matter, Kvitova will ever raise that plate in triumph again.

A Singular Sensation

---

---

I have to admit, I really would have liked to see Maria Sharapova square off with Victoria Azarenka for the women's singles title at Wimbledon tomorrow.

A few months ago, I watched those two face each other in a spirited match for the Sony Ericsson Open title — and I'm sure a rematch in a Grand Slam final would have been even more entertaining.

Sharapova held up her end of the deal — but, as Oliver Brown writes in The Telegraph, her opponent played poorly.

That doesn't take anything away from Sharapova's performance — which was, I will admit, somewhat lackluster. She did what she had to do against Sabine Lisicki, and she'll be playing in tomorrow's final.

Mission accomplished ... so far.

Her opponent will be Petra Kvitova, the eighth seed who needed three sets to dispose of Azarenka. The 21–year–old southpaw will be making her first appearance in a Grand Slam final.

It's getting hard to remember when one could say that about Sharapova. It's been seven years since, as a 17–year–old, she defeated Serena Williams in straight sets in the Wimbledon final. She's kind of old news.

As Greg Couch writes for The Sporting News, the "casual sports fan" couldn't be blamed for looking at the other three names besides Sharapova's in Wimbledon's women's semifinals and say, "Who?"

Even Azarenka, who has enjoyed some success but is still looking for her first berth in a Grand Slam singles final, remains a virtual unknown in the sport.

But I watched her beat Sharapova three months ago, and I'm convinced the 21–year–old has a bright future in front of her.

It would have been fun, as I say, to watch the two of them go at it in tomorrow's final — especially considering that (a) Azarenka, like Sharapova, has a reputation for making loud grunting noises on the court and (b) Wimbledon has been trying to crack down on that sort of thing.

It would have been, as the Sydney Morning Herald speculated a few days ago, "[a] deafening Wimbledon final."

I know practically nothing about Kvitova. Does she make loud grunting noises, too — loud enough to match the so–called "queen of scream," Sharapova?

Or is she more quiet, like the legendary Martina Navratilova, who was very reserved en route to 18 career Grand Slam singles titles and doesn't think the grunting in today's game is necessary?

That would be a real contrast in styles, wouldn't it?

Today's players, Navratilova says, "are making sounds like they are lifting 300 pounds, and it's not the case. The ball is not that heavy."

Well, I guess that is a matter of perspective. It might feel like 300 pounds for either of these ladies — after all, Sharapova wants to prove she isn't over the hill and Kvitova wants to prove she belongs in the Wimbledon final. The weight of expectations for both must be enormous.

You can watch the final on NBC starting at 8 a.m. (Central) tomorrow.