My friend and mentor, tennis enthusiast Julian Dowse has written a Wimbledon wrap with an eye on past and present. Julian is a published writer on politics and history, but tennis and more particularly Wimbleson is one of his great passions.
This year’s Wimbledon tournament was blessed by the hottest weather that the tournament had seen since 1984.
Needless to say this happened in the year that the tournament had prepared for rain by having the retractable roof available for use over the Centre Court. It was, however, pleasing to see the roof used once when some drizzle interrupted a match being played by arguably the most improbable number one seed in the history of the Ladies Championships. The name of this imposter will be a trivial pursuit question of note in the years to come. The roof was kept closed and the lights came on to enable Andy Murray to defeat a stubborn Stanislas Wawrinka in a fourth round match. Given the number of Polish electricians that have moved to England in recent years, it was fitting that a Pole should enjoy the nightlights given some of his compatriots probably installed them.
The Championships of 1984 were significant for many reasons. John McEnroe was at his sublime best in disposing Connors in straight sets in shorter time than Martina took to best Chris Evert in straight sets in a gripping Ladies final. Also, in 1984 all the 1983 Champions in every adult event retained their titles.
This year’s warm weather almost led to a similar conclusion. The Mens and Ladies Doubles champions were the same as 2008, the Williams sisters played off another final as they did last year and Federer was there, yet again, in his seventh successive final. He still has two to go to match Martina’s run of nine straight finals from 1982-1990. Not to be outdone, Martina was back again this year to win the Ladies Invitational Doubles title.
And, in a further concession to the very warm weather it seemed fitting that Wimbledon had one half of its Mixed Doubles Champions, Mark Knowles, hailing from the tropical Bahamas, at the ripe old age of 38.
The Ladies’ Championships failed to excite. The manner in which the supposed new generation of champions- Safina, Jankovic, Ivanoic, Kuznetzova- all disappeared without angst from the tournament was very disappointing. It left the way for the Williams sisters to claim their eighth title in ten years. Yes, Serena’s semi-final win was exciting, but did anyone really believe that even in Dementieva had won, there would not have been a Williams victory in the final?
The Men’s Championships saved, as in recent years, its best until last. For the third year in a row we had a five set final. The best two players of the fortnight deserved their places in the Men’s final. Andy Roddick had to beat a resilient Hewitt and the hometown hero Andy Murray, who arguably had the best form of all players leading into the tournament, in successive matches to make his third Wimbledon final.
In winning these matches, one noticed that Roddick was truly a resurgent player. For so long he seemed to be a player that lived and died by his serve alone. However, here was a player now able to execute powerful and deft groundstrokes and volleys.
Federer had by far an easier draw, with losses by Djokovic, Verdasco and Tsonga providing him with some relatively pedestrian opponents en route to the final- the highest seed he played was 13th seeded Soderling in his third round match
Roddick has every reason to feel almost schizoid about his loss. He only lost his serve once, and that being in the game that decided the championships. Roddick should remember that Stefan Edberg famously lost a semi-final to Michael Stich in 1991 6-4, 6-7,6-7,6-7 and quipped afterwards that he felt a little cheated because “ I never lost my serve”. Yes, Roddick should have won the second set tiebreaker, but who is to say that would have been definitive? Last year Federer lost the first two sets, but still took it to a fifth set and stared down championship points on the way. Roddick fought back to break Federer’s serve in the fourth set, only to be rewarded with the agony of having to serve second in the decider. Funnily enough, it was Federer’s serve that was far more dominating with him serving a remarkable 50 aces- that’s 6-0, 6-0, 30-0 in free points.
The final set although long did not match the quality of the fifth set of last year’s final. Roddick and Federer pushed through their respective service games with an almost numbing sense of rhythm. The 26 games of the second and third sets took a total of 90 minutes. The historic 30 games of the final set were similarly paced, lasting 95 minutes. Federer gave Roddick only two break chances, both in the same game and Federer took his chance on the first of the two break points offered to him. There was little of the pulsating rallying of last year’s final. This year’s final set was about attrition, last year’s was about high drama.
In the end, the courtside post-match interview gave me an insight into the psychological margin that Federer surely believed he had over Roddick. In a rather clumsy way Federer told Roddick not to worry about his loss because he “had disaster last year”- Roddick shot back “yeah, but you had won it five times”. That’s the point- Federer thought losing last year was a disaster because he never expected or wanted to lose. Like all the legendary champions, Federer has an air of proprietorial control of Centre Court. It is going to take a great player, equally convinced of his own ability to oust Federer from what he sees as his rightful place. Nadal was that player last year. This year Roddick convinced himself and many others that he may still be that player.
Julian Dowse
7th July 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment