Showing posts with label Wimbledon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wimbledon. Show all posts
Saturday, July 15, 2017
The Changing of the Guard at Wimbledon?
I did something today I haven't done much since I was a child; as I have written here before, it is something I used to do with my mother.
I watched the women's tennis final at Wimbledon.
Mom's been gone for 22 years so, clearly, it has been awhile since we watched Wimbledon together. But I remember when I was a child and Mom would buy fresh strawberries for us to eat while we watched (a nod to the Wimbledon tradition of strawberries and cream). I did my part this morning. I typically eat oatmeal for breakfast, and I buy these boxes of instant oatmeal that have two packets each of five different flavors, one of which is strawberries and cream. That was my breakfast this morning.
Garbiñe Muguruza, a 23–year–old Venezuela–born player who represents Spain and lives in Switzerland, won her first Wimbledon championship, defeating 37–year–old Venus Williams in two sets.
That was reminiscent of some of my times with Mom. We watched some Wimbledon finals when frequent champions fell — to time as much as their opponents — and I definitely had that déjà vu sensation today.
Venus has won five women's championships at Wimbledon, and she played a tough first set against Muguruza — but simply failed to capitalize on enough opportunities and lost 7–5. Then she seemed to hit the wall in the second set as Muguruza blanked her 6–0.
How astonishing was that? Well, Muguruza's other five opponents at Wimbledon all managed to win at least one game in the second set. Last year's runnerup, Angelique Kerber of Germany, even took Muguruza to three sets in Monday's Round of 16. But Muguruza prevailed.
Williams was dealing with plenty of distractions, primarily the June 9 car accident in which she was involved that led to the death of a 79–year–old passenger in the other car. Questions about that accident persist, but it appears that Williams will no longer be held responsible for what happened. Ultimately that should be a relief, but it is sure to be a constant presence in her thoughts these days.
And she lost her very first set at Wimbledon on July 5, but she seemed like the old Venus after that, winning 10 straight sets before encountering Muguruza today.
Venus may well return to competitive play, but time waits for no one. Eventually she will have to step aside and let the next generation have its moment in the sun.
In her post–match remarks, Muguruza unwittingly hinted at that, observing that she had grown up watching Williams play. Then, realizing the implications of her words, she tried to backtrack, adding that facing her in the final was "incredible."
But many observers must have wondered, as I did, if we were witnessing the changing of the guard. Muguruza has long been said to be the next big thing in women's tennis. She even made it to the Wimbledon final two years ago and lost to Williams' sister.
Now, with two Grand Slam titles under her belt (she won the French Open last year), she may be fulfilling those expectations and leaping to tennis' elite level.
And Williams may have at last reached the end of a long and successful career.
Labels:
Garbiñe Muguruza,
Mom,
tennis,
Venus Williams,
Wimbledon,
women's final
Saturday, July 6, 2013
The Legs Feed the Wolf
As France's Marion Bartoli neared the conclusion of her straight–set triumph over Germany's Sabine Lisicki in Saturday's Wimbledon women's final, the announcing team — which included 10–time Wimbledon finalist Chris Evert — looked for explanations for Lisicki's apparent collapse.
It was suggested that Lisicki, who gained a reputation as a "giant killer" in this year's tournament, simply couldn't maintain that level of intensity. She knocked off Serena Williams in the fourth round, then defeated fourth seed Agnieszka Radwanska in the semifinal. Bartoli wasn't the big name that the other two were, but she was seeded in the top 20 (Lisicki was 23rd) — and, as always in a Grand Slam tournament, when you're in the final, you can count on facing an opponent who has been playing very well for at least the last couple of weeks.
It isn't impossible, the announcers agreed, for a player to remain focused against three more highly regarded opponents in the same week. It's just very hard to do, especially at the Wimbledon level.
I agree, but for a different reason.
Women's tennis matches are best–of–three–sets affairs. Men's matches are best of five. A quick start is essential in women's tennis because it is a comparative sprint. A fast start is important in men's tennis, too, but it is easier to overcome a bad set in men's tennis — unless it is the fifth one. It's more of a marathon.
If you have a bad first set in women's tennis, your back is against the wall.
And that was the situation Lisicki faced today. She lost the opening set to Bartoli, 6–1, and knew right then she would have to go the three–set distance to win the title.
She had done it before in this tournament.
Two days earlier, she beat Radwanska in three sets. That third set was a doozy, too, a marathon, and Lisicki finally prevailed, 9–7. Epic.
On Monday, Lisicki beat Williams in three sets. She won the first one, then lost the second one and had to turn back the champion in the third set, 6–4.
A few days before her match with Williams, Lisicki needed three sets to beat the lesser known but just as dangerous Samantha Stosur from Australia.
To reach the finals at Wimbledon, it was necessary to win six matches. Lisicki needed three sets to win half of them.
Bartoli, by comparison, won all six of her previous matches in straight sets, just as she did today, and she never faced anyone who was seeded higher than she.
As late U.S. Olympic hockey coach Herb Brooks allegedly said, "The legs feed the wolf." I don't know if Brooks really said that, but, whether he did or didn't, it was appropriate for his U.S. hockey team in 1980 and it is appropriate for this year's Wimbledon women's final.
It speaks to endurance. Strong legs permit a wolf to outrun its prey.
I think Lisicki ran out of gas. It wasn't a matter of motivation or emotion. She showed plenty of emotion when the match was over, and Bartoli accepted the trophy Lisicki had dreamed would be hers. The spirit was willing, but the flesh, worn down by seemingly endless tests in the earlier rounds, was too weak.
Killing the other giants had taken too much from her.
Bartoli, on the other hand, was fresh. She hadn't lost a set in the whole tournament. She had more left in the tank. A lot more. Once she got over her first–set jitters — and there weren't many of those — she could have gone into cruise control against the increasingly frantic but ineffective Lisicki.
The legs feed the wolf.
Friday, July 5, 2013
A Different Kind of Final
About 12 hours from now, Sabine Lisicki and Marion Bartoli will meet in the Wimbledon women's singles final.
I'm sure this isn't what most observers expected when this tournament began two weeks ago.
Lisicki defeated the defending champion, Serena Williams, in the fourth round. That's been typical for the women's singles this year. Bartoli is seeded 15th, Lisicki is 23rd. Only one of the top 14 seeds — Agnieszka Radwanska — got to the semifinals.
Bartoli will be making her second appearance in the championship (she lost in 2007); Lisicki is in her first–ever Wimbledon singles final. Obviously, no matter who wins, it will be her first title at Wimbledon, and that is something that Wimbledon watchers have rarely been able to say. By the time the field has been narrowed down to the last two, most of the time at least one has won the Grand Slam event before.
It has been rarer still for Wimbledon watchers to see a final in which both contestants were seeking their first Grand Slam title, but that is precisely what those in attendance tomorrow will see.
"Neither Bartoli nor Lisicki is a household name," writes Liz Clarke in the Washington Post — and, in the age of Maria Sharapova and the Williams sisters, who can argue with that?
The 28–year–old Bartoli seems to be savoring this shot at redemption. "I do just everything a bit better than what I was doing six years ago," Bartoli said this week.
Paul Birch of BBC Sports writes that the final will be a "fascinating encounter between the big–serving Lisicki, 23, and Bartoli, who boasts one of the best returns in tennis."
Birch reports that Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert pick Lisicki to win. Their selections are based primarily on the aspects of the individual games — Navratilova said, "I always go for the person who has the biggest game to win and she has a bigger game."
Evert was more restrained in her praise, but she said, "If Sabine Lisicki plays the same way she has been playing and serves like she has been serving ... then I think she definitely has a slight edge."
I agree with their assessments of the performances in the tournament, but my pick is based on how they have played against each other in the past. I know Bartoli was seeded higher in this tournament, but the fact remains that Lisicki beat a higher–seeded foe in the semifinals (Radwanska) than did Bartoli.
The two haven't faced each other often, but the head–to–head advantage belongs to Lisicki, who is 3–1 against Bartoli.
It should be interesting, and I'm looking forward to watching it tomorrow morning. I feel like I did when I was a child, and my mother made a big production of watching the Wimbledon finals. We would settle in to watch the women's and men's finals and eat strawberries and cream — or what I am sure was my mother's version of it (and may have borne no resemblance to what they actually eat).
I have no strawberries and cream to eat tomorrow — but I think I have a strawberry Pop–Tart somewhere ...
Labels:
championship,
Marion Bartoli,
Sabine Lisicki,
tennis,
Wimbledon,
women,
women in sports
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Sibling Rivalry
She needed three sets to do it, but Serena Williams held off a determined Agnieszka Radwanska to claim her fifth Wimbledon singles title Saturday.
"I always wanted everything Venus had," she joked after being reminded (for what, I am sure, was not the first time) that her sister Venus also has five Wimbledon singles titles — including one she claimed against Serena in 2008 (although three of Serena's titles have been won against Venus, including a 2009 rematch).
Serena has now won 14 Grand Slam titles, and, at the age of 30, the window for her to match Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova (with 18 each) may be closing — and the odds that she can match the all–time leader, Steffi Graf (22), may be nonexistent.
But even at 30, people speak in awe of Serena's serve, even her second serve, which most players seem to treat timidly. It is the best in the business, they say — and when I say "they," I include in that group Chris Evert, who was a commentator during today&apos's match.
Serena had the proper appreciation for her serve, Simon Cambers wrote in The Guardian, but she seemed baffled by its power.
"My serve really helped me throughout this tournament," she told Cambers. "I can't describe why it was so good or how it was so good. It's not like I practise it that much. I just had the rhythm."
Radwanska, who was seeded third, was no easy mark.
Serena cruised to a 6–1 victory in the first set but then faltered in the rain–delayed second set and had to hold off the hard–charging Radwanska in the third set, 6–2.
Over and over again, Radwanska seemed to be on the brink of overcoming Serena in that final set, just as she had in the first, but, in the end, the result was the same.
ESPN's announcers spoke of Radwanska's competitive nature, how the fact that she made it to the women's singles championship would not be enough for her, and that certainly appeared to be the case. Clutching her runnerup plate, she almost seemed to be in mourning.
Before the match, she had spoken with confidence of her chances to upend Serena.
A three–set duel clearly did not satisfy her.
I expect we will see her in Centre Court again.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
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.
Labels:
championship,
Maria Sharapova,
Petra Kvitova,
tennis,
Wimbledon,
women in sports
Friday, July 1, 2011
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.
Labels:
championship,
Maria Sharapova,
Petra Kvitova,
tennis,
Wimbledon,
women in sports
Thursday, June 30, 2011
The End of the Borg Era
They're playing the men's semifinals at Wimbledon tomorrow, which is a good time to pause and remember when John McEnroe defeated Björn Borg in the men's singles final at Wimbledon in July 1981.
If you just shrugged your shoulders at that, you probably don't realize just how dominant Borg had been in men's tennis up to that time.
By July 1981, he had won five consecutive men's singles championships at Wimbledon.During that stretch (1976–80), he beat Ilie Năstase (whose name may be mostly forgotten now but he was one of the sport's best in the 1970s), Jimmy Connors (twice) and Roscoe Tanner (mostly a journeyman but he was in the Top 5 when he faced Borg) in the final — and he had beaten McEnroe in an epic, five–set, three–hour–and–53–minute duel for his fifth consecutive title in 1980.
It would be hard to top that one, but the truth was that McEnroe did just about everything — except win — in 1980. A victory in the men's singles final was the only thing that would be an improvement on that memorable performance, and he came into the match determined to do what he failed to do the last time.
Perhaps that was Borg's problem. Maybe Borg had no fire in the belly. Maybe he felt he had nothing left to prove — and, to be honest, he probably didn't. In the late 1970s, there was no one in men's tennis who could compete with him. He had proven that time and time again.
Until McEnroe came along. And even McEnroe couldn't overcome Borg the first time.
But theirs was a compelling rivalry — and one that was over far too soon. It was meteoric, really. It was comparable, in its way, to the Roger Federer–Rafael Nadal duels except for a couple of things.
- The Borg–McEnroe rivalry was over almost before it began, and
- McEnroe was, as Mike McGovern writes in the Reading (Pa.) Eagle, "borderline crazy."
McEnroe was always a ticking time bomb, ready to blow up at the officials or his foes ... or the fans.
Borg, on the other hand, was much more reserved. He wasn't prone to outbursts. He did have — as the world has learned in the last three decades — personal issues, but he tended to let his tennis do the talking on the court.
He had a deceptive appearance — he was bowlegged yet quick — and a devastating two–handed backhand shot that evolved from the slap shot he preferred when he played hockey as a young boy.
To put it simply, Borg was great. He won more than two–fifths of the Grand Slam tournaments in which he participated. He won nearly nine out of every 10 singles matches in those tournaments.
Surfaces never seemed to bother him. He was as comfortable — and successful — on the clay of the French Open as he was the grass of Wimbledon. That's always a tricky transition.
Historically, it has been nearly impossible to win both of those tournaments in the same year, coming back to back as they do, but Borg did it in three consecutive years — 1978, 1979 and 1980.
Winning five straight Wimbledon titles might not impress as many folks in the 21st century as it did three decades ago, but, until Federer came along, Borg was the only men's player to do it since professionals have been included.
(Federer, by the way, is one of only three men to win more Grand Slam singles titles than Borg, but he won't be adding to his total at Wiimbledon. He lost in Wednesday's quarterfinals — his first loss ever after taking a two– set lead.)
Năstase, arguably the world's best male tennis player until he lost the Wimbledon title to Borg in '76, once said, "We're playing tennis, he's playing something else."
Personally, I never knew what there was to comprehend. Borg was a baseliner, perhaps the best there ever was. I always suspected that, because he was so good, most of his contemporaries couldn't see how deceptively simple the whole thing was.
But Arthur Ashe had it right, I think.
"I think Bjorn could have won the U.S. Open," Ashe said. "I think he could have won the Grand Slam. But by the time he left, the historical challenge didn't mean anything. He was bigger than the game. He was like Elvis or Liz Taylor or somebody. He'd lost touch with the real world."
Thirty years ago, McEnroe must have figured out what Borg's game was — because McEnroe beat him at it.
There were reports that Borg's life had been threatened after he beat Connors in the semifinals. I never saw any credible evidence to support that. Perhaps only by inserting an element of personal stress and danger could some people rationalize the reality of a brash upstart like McEnroe toppling one of the greatest tennis players of all time.
That match wasn't as legendary as the one played the year before, but it was noteworthy for two things:
- It ended Borg's record 41–match winning streak at Wimbledon, and
- it turned out to be his last Wimbledon final.
Borg said at the time that he had lost his motivation, and perhaps he had. But the tennis world had lost a great rivalry, perhaps the only one that could have matched the one between Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova (who met in 14 Grand Slam finals).
Evert and Navratilova were truly the Lakers and Celtics of women's tennis — of individual sports — and other individual sports (especially men's tennis) wanted the same thing. Mostly, it would bring attention to the sport — the way Ali and Frazier brought attention to boxing, the way Nicklaus and Palmer brought attention to golf, and the way the rivalry between Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding brought attention to skating when it boiled over into something more sinister.
The rivalry that developed between McEnroe and Connors was good — but they only met in two Grand Slam finals, exactly half as many as McEnroe and Borg.
The Pete Sampras–Andre Agassi duels of the 1990s were memorable — but the two played for only five Grand Slam titles.
Borg and McEnroe met in four Grand Slam finals between 1978 and 1981 — and three of those matches came in the last 15 months of that time span.
We will never know what might have been.
Labels:
1981,
Bjorn Borg,
history,
John McEnroe,
tennis,
Wimbledon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




