Marion Bartoli is more than just a bundle of quirks

It wasn't something you could immediately explain, but in only a matter of hours following Marion Bartoli's Wimbledon win this Saturday, something about the way this was being processed and sold felt a little off.


As the world sits up and takes note, the only touchpoints offered with which we are to appreciate this oft-neglected, very talented and, yes, quite unique player are her eccentricities.

It's understandable, of course: no other player or lay person I know has that elaborate a training regime, or practices with that amount of intricate elastic attached to her arms and legs, or with balls under her feet - or like this. Nor, assuming that's what's happening, can I blame the media very much for trying to popularise a "lesser-light" to people who only watch tennis for four (or just two) weeks of the year.

But it's also a resolutely blinkered portrayal: whilst her methods are undoubtedly novel, the real reason, I suspect, we are seeing this over-egging of her indie-factor is that she doesn't, for the most part, look like a tennis player. And, well, that presents a quandary.

That probably needs elaboration: what that actually means is, she doesn't conform to "our" expectations - expectations conditioned by years of societal and media-honed iconography of what a female athlete and physicality itself is supposed to look like.

This has led to her being likened to a Rottweiler on air (yes battling players are sometimes described in animalistic terms but ask yourself how desirable this really is and why Sharapova would almost certainly never have that term used about her), having her drive and work ethic explained away as a coming-to-terms of sorts with the idea of never being able to look like Sharapova, and receiving a horribly predictable torrent of insults on Twitter.

People really have a problem with Marion Bartoli winning Wimbledon (and that's before one even approaches the question of asterisks). The only surprise there, sadly, is how unsurprising that is.


Yet even in what appear to be genuine efforts to give her her dues, the adulatory notes inevitably seem to give way to an all too familiar celebration of her quirkiness.

I like this to a point. The use of such a 'hook' seems to me to be a good way to catalyse interest in what is after all a diverse array of vibrant and interesting personalities not normally known to viewers who don't follow this sport year round the way I do.

Even within the ranks of tennisheads you wouldn't count amongst her fans, there exists an appetite to celebrate Marion for being Marion - it just seems ideologically unsound not to. So why on this occasion does it feel lazy, somewhat insipid, and, well, a bit of a cop out?

It's not that here haven't been some perfectly good profiles of her win setting out both the context and history of her journey, warts and all.

Nor am I suggesting that allusions to her quirks aren't in many cases (though clearly not all) benign and affectionate. I hardly need add that no profile can hope to steer completely clear of her oddities. Would we even want to read that?

Perhaps what I find so discomfitting is the credence this may give to the idea that she's only worth talking about because of these peculiarities.

Such treatment would, after all, be entirely at one with the type of banal coverage women's tennis often (some notable exceptions, as always) receives and with which Inverdale's comment - which, incidentally, has actually been trotted out in one form or another by many, well before his use of the word 'looker' this year - almost perfectly coheres.

Whether it's those tiresome 'decibelle' features, 'irreverent' debates about equal prize money, or quite deliberate scorn masquerading as nostalgia for an age of variety, the enduring subtext is this: beyond the glamazons and those too-big-to-ignore (already a problematic stratification), women's tennis is decidedly second tier - and the second tier of that second tier (of which Bartoli is a constituent) is something to be endured, politely exhibited perhaps but not engaged with in any serious sense.

You don't tend, after all, to be quite that denigrating towards a product you're supposed to endorse, value and enjoy.

You might, therefore, say Bartoli hasn't been a staple of the media for a very different, darker sort of non-conformance. Female athletes have always been judged by their looks - often to the total exclusion of their abilities and accolades - and held against an absurdly singular vision of 'body ideal' that our senses are daily trained to further imbibe and aspire to.


I don't presume to understand how Bartoli made sense of all this growing up but there's little doubt she's not about to let such vacuous notions of brand and marketability bother her now - her brushing aside of Inverdale's 'banter' was quite satisfactory in that regard. If, that is, we were ever in any doubt as to how she rolls.

But against that backdrop - and even allowing for a certain wackiness (we're not likely to see her accomplish this feat ever again) - it's difficult to avoid a feeling that someone who wasn't even accorded her own shirt sponsor until late 2011 isn't, at times, being treated as a bit of a sideshow.

That 'The Misfit' - a lovingly endowed moniker by her fans - isn't in the context of that murky place known as 'the world we live in' simply one of many tropes commissioned in order to avoid engaging with women's tennis in a way which should, by now, be axiomatic.

All in all, I'd say that's a bit of a shame considering tennis is one of very few global sports that can boast comparable participation and earnings amongst both genders.

Put simply, the occasion of her winning arguably the biggest title in tennis ought to be the moment for precisely such engagement, whatever else might have gone on to this point.

Especially if you're serious about grabbing the interest of young girls who need role models besides Maria and Serena - who, great as they are, can seem a little larger than life at times.

Far easier to comedify the funny-bouncy-lady who came through what was unarguably 'Wacky Wimbledon'.

***

The above notwithstanding, there's just no getting away from it: in her training methods, the way she plays, and in her dealings with the FFT, Bartoli is the antithesis of formulaic. Most people seem to agree this is no bad thing.

Yet what can sometimes get overlooked is that it's that very strain of determination and stubbornness to go about things precisely as she sees fit, that has (quite unsurprisingly actually) rendered her more relatable than countless other more media-compliant players are allowed (or allow themselves) to get.

Marion catnaps between matches, paints, giggles uncontrollably with her new team, and as far as I can tell, lives and loves life in ways which aren't always that dissimilar to many of us. Yes, there's an incurable oddball at the heart of this, but don't kid yourself we don't see these people all the time.


The kooks are all around us everywhere, all the time. In thrall to no one, and nothing but themselves, doing their bit to add to the entropy of our lives, everyday, little by little - staving off a Meagresville of sobriety, uniformity and compliance.

You know the type. We all do.

She hasn't always got it right. Her episode with the FFT could be construed as the authorities throwing their weight around, or a diabolically stubborn miscalculation on her part depending on whose side you're on. And amongst some, the view is that the decision to appoint a new dad-less team could have come sooner.

But isn't that what we all do when we believe in something?

Nor - and this is equally important - has she chosen to court popularity by cultivating that unbearable air of faux-eccentricity; by going out of her way to provide "quote", sporting ever-more mysterious tattoos, professing ever-more controversial opinions and generally providing the kind of fodder that makes some profile writers drool, but doesn't, in the clear light of day, actually stack up to a whole lot of anything.

Whatever else one might think of her, she's succeeded through discipline, rigour, the courage of her very well documented convictions, and, dare I say it, a terribly old-fashioned love of her craft, without recourse to the kind of swanky sponsorships that we are told are so important.

She's what I imagine an intelligent, articulate person that happens to be prodigiously talented at tennis being themselves actually looks like.

And that's why I'm a fan.

(Pics: Reuters, Julian Finney/Getty, Adam Davy/PA, Bartoli's Twitter Feed)
Read More...

2Hander's Take: Born-Again Single-Hander...

I'M BACK BABY!!! [Z: *falls off stool* Well look what the cat dragged in...]

Well, it's been a long time to say the least. I have not been keeping track of the Blog as much as I should have (explanation, well, sort of, offered below). However, like old friends, it should take us no time to carry on where we left off. [Z: Uh-uh...you don't get to shake off going AWOL for 2 years that easy...]

For those of wondering "WHO the HELL is this guy?!?", and there have been enough changes to the Blog and its readers to make me think that's a sizeable proportion of you wonderful people, I am an old (and hopefully good) friend of Zafar's - he used to be called Topspin - what happened to that?! [Z: Think its probably ok to use my name after 3 years ;)]

The last time I posted must have been around the 2009 mark, around the US Open time. A lot has gone on and a lot has changed. Firstly, I have changed job and location to one where internet is more expensive (But I still pay for it! Hey, I don't have a TV!) and the work is more stressful. That's a super combination to keep me off posting, but hey, I got there in the end - question is, will Andy Murray?! [drums and cymbal] [Z: To quote Mr President: YES HE CAN. AND WILL :( ]

(On a side note, whilst I am quite a fan of Muzza, it is not because of his image as David Lloyd suggested. I did like Murray's retort of 'stick to building fitness clubs') [Z: I like the shaggy look - its not like he went 'George Bastl' on us :p ]

Another change has been to my tennis game (hence my nick?). I have abandoned the two-handed backhand for a Federeresque (in my dreams, anyway!) single-handed. I have found that it is more consistent, I feel as though I have far more control of the ball and I find it easier to get into position for it. Also, funnily enough, I can deal with higher balls far better - Roger, give me a call and we'll talk! [Z: HERESY. After all the grief you gave me over the ONE time I tried hitting with two hands...]

So, that would make something of a Born-Again Single-Hander. In light of this, must I now change my nick to BASHer?! However, if we've done away with nicks, then my name is Asad.

OK, well the story so far is...Novak Djokovic is whupping EVERYONE - good night! [Z: No sh*t] Seriously, the guy has come leaps and bounds both on and off the court. For I...uh-oh, humble pie time...used to be quite a critic of Nolé. [Z: Again...no sh*t] I found the impersonations were becoming rather tiring as was dedicating every victory as a tribute to how hard life was a Serb in the 1990s. [Z: ...]Also, on court, he would seem to "lose the will to live" on occasion giving up after a good start or not being able to get started in the first place - particularly against Federer and Nadal.

Now? WHOA! For a start, he is now starting to beat Federer more regularly and convincingly. His groundstrokes have always been strong on both wings but his backhand really is nearly on par with his forehand. [Z: I quite liked his BH, but you're right both strokes equally dependable....] His volleying has improved, though he's always looked more natural at the net than Nadal. [Z: Nadal/Nole have both learnt to volley admirably well - but I still think they both look like a couple of street-hustlers at the net] More natural than Tsonga? Erm, no! Also, he has finally found his rhythm with that new service action and not to mention the new racquet.

I think I used to call him Chokovic! That, too, has now been formally retracted.

And now, I must challenge a few things, if I may. [Z: Uh-oh] I would say that he did play his best tennis in many respects against Nadal, both mentally and mechanically (if that makes sense). His shots during the 1st, 2nd and 4th sets (more about the 3rd set in a bit) were fan-diddly-tastic! He was playing like a man possessed. He destroyed Nadal in the 2nd set (in fact I thought Rafa must have had a bust-up with his girlfriend or something because a significant part of him was not in the game). The way he was mixing up the pace of serves was genius. The way he went after Nadal's backhand was also a brilliant tactic which worked a treat. [Z: Agree..I actually think Nole elicited a lot of Nadals "unforced" errors - my point was he didn't need to be as good as he was say in IW/Miami...but I almost prefer us to disagree :P ]

The 3rd set, Rafa kind of decided to show up and play. However, maybe nerves got to Nolé as he was hitting a lot of balls out and his serve somewhat desserted him. I thought that the old Chokovic Syndrome might start kicking in then. He broke early in the 4th set, but quickly got broken back. This is where he really showed his new-found mental strength: he got it out of his system, dug deep, went for his shots and it paid off. [Z: Rafa thinks this level might not last...I don't get it - relying on his opponents level to fall has never been his style either on court or in a presser :-O ]

Whereas Tsonga showed us the masterclass on how to beat Nadal at the 2008 Aussie Open, which was by and large from the net [Z: I have a bone to pick with Jo...], Nolé has managed a few times now (not to mention on clay!) to beat Nadal at his own game - with high, loopy topspin from the back of the court. This is why I feel rather cheated that they didn't get to meet at RG and in a strange twist of fate, were deprived of a Rafole final at Wimby. I think Nolé believes he can 'bother' Rafa at RG now... [Z: You're right - that would've been something - but I liked Feds win as well.....]

So, Novak has finally come of age and he fully deserves the No. 1 ranking for he is, so far this year, the best player on the planet. He has matured incredibly, OK it came after a few bad seasons and injuries but I take my hat off to him... [Z: Ditto....]
Read More...

Wimbledon: Parting Shots - The rest

» I hate talk of “guards” (and their replacement) almost as much as I do “goats” – and mostly for the reasons Tignor mentions here, which are that people are apt to use the phrase prematurely.

It’s certainly true that, were Rafa to win the FO and Wimbledon next year, and Novak to win, say, Aus again, and Federer (or someone else?) to win the USO, those who called for the changing of the guards would be forced to change them right back again (or at least to admit they were premature).

Even so, I think Tignor overstates his case a little in characterising Novak’s victory this weekend and ascent to world #1 as, “just a big win”. 

2 Slams, 4 Masters titles and only one loss out of a total of fifty matches played since November last year is (as I suspect Mr Tignor knows full well) a little more than “just a big win”.

And you know what? I wouldn’t be surprised if this does turn out to be the changing of the guards. It has to come at some point (duh!).

» The Wimbledon Mic disaster

For a tournament steeped in such history, prestige and, well, privilege, this was confoundingly bad and utterly unforgivable.

The point about a runner-up (whoever they might be) is that they’re usually hankering to get off court as soon as possible.

The very least you might do is to make the various formalities they must undergo as easy to endure and as smooth as possible.

Instead, most of the comments Rafa made to Sue Barker weren’t heard by anyone. When transmission did return, he (understandably irritable) cursorily thanked his team on a mic that was still so glitchy as to make most of what he said unintelligible.

 

» This may very well be the biggest crisis of Rafa’s very decorated career since his injury/parental-divorce-ridden 2009.

It may just be his post-loss state of mind but, nevertheless, I found this quote worrying:

"My experience says this level is not forever. Even for me when I was last year winning three Grand Slams, my level of last year is not forever. Probably the level of Novak of today is not forever."

Not “I must improve” but that “Novak won’t stay that way forever”.

» Rafa a “cheater”, really? Get a grip.

I’ve obviously missed something.

Why is taking a MTO before a tie-break – not mid game, not on his opponent’s serve, not even on a changeover – but before a tie break (a natural cut off point) evidence of questionable moral fibre?

That’s what Rafa did against Delpo and it caused unchecked, unmitigated outrage on my timeline.

As it turned out, nothing much was wrong – but judging from the reaction you’d think some would prefer that there was – perhaps they’d also prefer him to play through injury, in case there really was a problem?

Drawing attention to his quite irritating idiosyncrasies is one thing. The perception hit he now regularly takes makes addressing it of vital importance.

Using them to malign his character in a desperate (and rather insecure) attempt at “bigging up” one’s own fave (especially when that fave is in no need of “bigging up”) is selling yourself very short indeed.

» As if to compound his perception problems even further there was a release-of-information gaffe on Monday when both Neil Harman and tennis.com reported Rafa as having a “hairline fracture” that could have kept him out for “6 weeks”.

The report was killed by Uncle Toni less than 24 hours later who also confirmed that he was still on to play Montreal. Which is it?

» My own feeling is Rafa has very evident PR issues rather than “moral fibre” issues – and, needless to say, he needs to sort them out – specifically as it relates to the management, treatment and announcement of his injuries.

I’ve no time for those accusing him of cheating (its bigoted and unnecessary), but shit like this doesn’t help his cause. I also don’t think playing a Slam shot up full of anaesthetic is the best way to be going about things but that rant’s for another day.




» Whatever progress Pova may have made (and it’s difficult to deny progress has been made if you properly examine her results since IW), and however disciplined, resolute and hungry she undoubtedly remains, its hard not to feel that she’s often treading water just to keep her serve intact.

It may well define the rest of her career – when it breaks down the rest of her game is sure to follow. She knows it. We know it.

Despite all this, we should be very wary of dismissing her chances of winning a Slam altogether. She’s gotten this close twice in the past two months (one of which was on her worst surface): she only played one poor match at RG (SF), and it’s not difficult, I hope, to see Petra handing away her debut Wimbledon final amidst a flurry of UFEs?

The chips will, of course,  need to land the right way up, and if and when the win comes, it will have been in spite of, rather than because of her serve.

Still not quite the same thing as “never”. 

» Kimiko/Venus week one. Match of the tournament. Match of the year?

Like I said, required viewing for WTA girly-girls under the age of 25.



» After 11 months out, Serena (unsurprisingly) hit the ground running and only came undone by a monumental effort on the part of one of the flattest ball strikers in the sport.

Her fourth round exit will see her drop to #175 in the rankings. At least one top seed is due a very bad day at the office in round one of the USO.

» I’ve learnt to expect fluctuations from Venus Williams and it seems six months out hasn’t changed that

The good news is that she still had it in her to go toe-to-toe with Kimiko. The bad news is that she still hasn’t figured out Tsvetana.



» Seriously, I haven’t figured out Tsvetana either. Nobody has.

9 matches won out of the 22 events she played since Wimbledon last year. Just nine. Yet somehow that's enough to make the the semis of Wimbledon going through the world number three and Venus Williams (again and with the exact scoreline) back to back? Someone explain.

» <Insert threadbare pun about Slam-less world number ones here>

For what it’s worth, I still think Caro can win a Major, but like Pova (actually nothing like Pova) a lot of the chips would have to land the right way up. And the Law of Averages says it’s not nearly as inconceivable as is being suggested that they do land the right way up. At least once.

» Was rather hoping for an end to Fed’s 18-month Slam drought, and when Jo-Wilfried went and did what he did and in the way he did, it made me a little sad – we go back a long way, Fed and I.

And I still say he’s been quite unlucky  – every Slam loss dating back to the USO (and Delpo) in 2009 involves a big hitter playing lights-out tennis – with the type of depth and accuracy no one has an answer for. That, or its been Novak (2.0) or Rafa (on clay).

That’s not me being an apologist, it’s just plain fact.

»  I’m still not done blaming everyone and everything

In Murray’s own words, he’s “15-20% behind Rafa” and those other two. Which will make the win that much sweeter when it does come. Perhaps rather foolishly, I still choose to believe it will come.

» Marion

I only wish she hadn’t played that much tennis in week one :(

» Vika

Bad draws, injury, heat stroke, the return of the Williamses and, now, the emergence of Petra. There appear to be an awful lot of reasons why Vika shouldn’t win a Slam and the list is only going to get bigger.


» Don’t normally talk doubles but Jurgen and Iveta winning mixed is one of the highlights of the fortnight for me. Mainly because we got to see Iveta smile.

And pictures of Iveta smiling are, as we all know, collectors items.

» Sabine

Welcome back. And don’t disappear on me again.

» Jo-Wilfried

I can’t hate on you – especially seeing as you were able to win a set off Novak and took him to two breaks in the semis. But I still think you screwed Fed.

» BREAKING: Sam Stosur still can’t win a match on grass. 

» Aside: Alan Rickman would make a quite EXCELLENT umpire. And it’s not just the equally magnificent voice.

» Unnoticed and unsung: Dominika – 4th round or better at every Slam. Take a bow.

Read More...

Wimbledon: Parting Shots (Petra edition)

I make no apologies for devoting the first half of these ‘Parting Shots’ to Petra. She’s the best thing that’s happened to women's tennis in years.

» Petra Kvitova is the best WTA Grand Slam ingénue since Maria Sharapova and I hasten to add, Svetlana Kuznetsova.


Its been seven years and no one’s even come close.

In some senses she’s no different from a lot of her generation – a huge backswing, a lasso FH, a tall imposing frame, not the greatest looking mover and someone that looks to out power her opponents.

Then there’s all the little things that set her apart, like the ability to slice/volley, the foibles and curious ticks, like that mild look of annoyance she sometimes wears after an UFE – all of which conspire together to make her ‘Petra’.

» All throughout the fortnight comparisons were being made to Mary Pierce. I have to say I couldn’t really see it.

Not at first. And even though I’ve come round a little since, I think there’s a more valuable comparison to be made with Svetlana Kuznetsova.

You’ll see where I’m going with this.

» Petra’s not in the business of getting down on herself.

If she fires off an UFE, she winces a little, may stare pensively at her frame but then moves on. That furrowed look of minor vexation and bemused disappointment she sometimes wears helps keep her focus rather than detracting from it.



» The effortless winners are, like Sveta, the tennis equivalent of “easy listening”.

Sveta has the shortened backswing which I’m not going to pretend I don’t prefer. The easy flamboyance is common to both.

» The flip side of such easy flamboyance is that neither deems it necessary to take any corrective action when things go awry. As they often do.

They simply have too much faith in the quality of their shotmaking to start doing anything differently. I know I wouldn’t either if I were half as gifted.

But when the wobble doesn’t auto-correct, it often costs them matches rather than mere sets, sets rather than mere games, and games rather than mere points.

» Not gonna lie: Her lanky frame can look a little clumsy chasing down balls along the baseline, yet she’s mostly – mysteriously – in position, and is somehow able to maintain the same depth on the run as she does when lining up for a shot on her terms.

That’s them muscles at work. And it gives rise to an athleticism that is completely beyond someone like Pova – although I adore her all the more for it.

» Let me say that again: Petra maintains the same depth on the run as she does when she’s able to line up for a shot on her own terms.

It won her countless rallies in the final as poor Maria simply wasn’t able to keep up. You just don’t see that very often, except maybe from Venus Williams on a good day. New breed of competitor.



» The easy shotmaking is a function of an even easier temperament.

After seven years of tantrums, chokers and cry-babies, I’m unashamedly in awe of it.

» Make no mistake about it, Petra deplores UFEs (I don’t see how you cannot when you’ve seen the excellence you’re capable of).

But she doesn’t erupt in emotion the way Marat or Bepa used to, or silently burn herself out in seething resentment the way…..many others have done.

Neither does she choke as overtly as a Sam Stosur or an Amelie Mauresmo. No, Petra (and Sveta) occupy a quieter middle ground known as ‘Erratica’, which can lead to downright reckless or maddeningly efficient shotmaking.

» Aside: Born 150 or so years ago and Petra would have made a quite EXCELLENT pre-Raphaelite muse.

» And now, for the clincher: both Sveta and Petra wore braces when they first burst on the scene in a maelstrom of dorkish affability.

What do you mean that’s not relevant?

Read More...

Wimbledon: Not the best final, Not his best tennis…

Not, in my mind, a vintage final. Not even close.




But I’m not going to harp on about Rafa’s UFEs – there weren’t, in any case,  as many as it “felt”, perhaps because they all occurred at the most critical moments.

I’m not going to talk about his shoddy forehand, or how I thought this was the worst Slam performance I might have ever seen from him.

I’m not even going to bother pointing out that, as well as he played, I thought that Novak was beatable today, not quite at the heady heights he attained during his streak – a place he hasn’t been in since the beginning of the French Open.

To do so would be disingenuous.

It’s not that I don’t believe in any, or all of the above, or in the validity of pointing it out. It’s just that, in the grand scheme of things, it simply doesn’t matter.

And if you want to get picky about it, many of Rafa’s errors were elicited, if not entirely “forced”. Yes there is a difference.



What we know is this: Novak is now a troublesome squatter in Rafa’s head, and it’s up to Rafa to find a means of evicting him – this really shouldn’t be contentious given he’s admitted as much in his presser, which was as unflinching as it was Yoda-like:

"Today my game don't bother him a lot,” Nadal told reporters. "He's playing better than my level. And find solutions, that's what I have to try. When I was healthy, I only lost against him. Probably the mental part is little bit dangerous for me. To win these kind of matches, I have to play well these kind of points [that] can change the match. I didn't play well these moments. That's what happened in Indian Wells, that's what happened in Miami, and that's what happened here. I don't want to count in Madrid and Rome because he played much better than me. And to change to be little bit less nervous than these times, play more aggressive, and all the time be confident with myself. That's what I gonna try next time. If not, I gonna be here explaining the sixth [loss].”

The problem I have with much of the commentary surrounding Novak’s win is that it’s still being conducted through the prism of the most mindblowing moments of his streak – a place which, if we’re honest, he hasn’t been in since the beginning of the French Open.


There’s nothing deplorable or disingenuous in drawing attention to his record this season, nor in the effusive praise that’s sometimes giving rise to – this win, like many before it, is, in no small sense, a product of that streak, if only in a residual way. But it seems to me that doing that deflects attention from its real merit: that he simply didn’t need to be at that level.

The fact is, Novak was able to put Rafa through the mill performing at barely around 85% – that also happened to be high enough to produce what he called “the best grass court match of his career”.

In other words, he won Wimbledon without playing his best tennis. How many times have we serenaded Rafa and Fed for doing precisely that?

Unhealthy obsession with the streak obscures that very “Big Picture”.

In terms of trajectory, narrative and, dare I say it, “destiny” (an overused word I’ve grown to hate), however, it’s not only valid, but imperative to take note of the streak in its entirety; for only then do you come to a proper understanding of how the best player of the past 7 months came to win the biggest title of his career and position himself atop the rankings.

Even the nerves and issues with confidence Rafa alluded to in his presser are a direct function of what transpired in those 7 months – the seeds of his fear (and resulting UFEs) in the final were laid in those four losses he suffered to Novak earlier this year.

So you see,  it’s really quite irrelevant whether or not Novak played at the height of his powers in what must be considered the crowning victory of his season (and, one must think, his career) to date.



Marathon runners don’t sprint, leap or bound over the finishing line, they sometimes just casually shuffle across, secure in the knowledge of the work they’ve already put in to reach this point – and Novak did a heck of a lot more than that to make world #1.

Read More...

Wimbledon: Noticeboard

So on twitter, this would be where I retweet, prefixing it with “THIS” (or other similar words to that effect):

“She played here with poise and self-belief, not least her serving out the title with a love game. And notice how she celebrated afterwards: there was no scaling of the stands to hug her box, no dramatic drops to the grass. Kvotiva smiled with satisfaction but the message was: “Yeah, that’s about how I thought it’d go.” She’s now a Wimbledon champion and her profile has changed forever. But it sure looks like she’s up for what’s next.”
-- SI Open Source

No tears. No dramaz. Just a grounded manner that is about as easy, baggage-free and clean as her hitting on court. It probably won’t win her many endorsements. But it makes it, in my eyes, the best Grand Slam ingénue win since Maria Sharapova.

Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Rafa	Muzz	JoW	Tomic,
Fish	Feli	Fed	Novak

Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Domi	Sabine	Paszek	Petra
Maria	Marion	Vika	Tsvetana

 

Legend

Hoity-Toity

Upwardly-Mobile

Sympathy Vote

Ideas above their station

***PICK OF THE DAY: Day thirteen***

Centre

13:00 Rafael Nadal(ESP)[1] vs. Novak Djokovic(SRB)[2]

Read More...

Wimbledon: I will go down with this ship.

DAMN IT ALL TO HELL.

 

I blame Pippa Middleton.

I blame Bjorn Borg and his STOOPID jovialities with Mansour Bahrami being played out between points whilst Murray was out there being flayed alive.

I blame Goran’s quite appalling middle parting.

I blame all those that have the gall to suggest that it all hinged on that one forehand that sailed long at 2-1, 15-30 up in the 2nd set – as if losing the next seven games (that would be three consecutive breaks of the Andy Murray serve) was inextricably tied to one metaphysical moment in space-time.

I blame the BBC and their symbolism overkill in showing a shot of an actual cloud with an actual silver lining.


I blame the anguish, the audacity….


…and the resulting masochistic trauma.

I blame all those who profess the importance of “winning the first set”. Really? Coz in my mind, anyone playing Rafa at Wimbledon (where he’s won his last 20 matches) needs to win not just the 1st, but the 2nd set and possibly even wangle an early break in the third before I even consider breathing easy easier.

I blame Rafa for being too good by half. I blame him for not flinching or ceding an inch.



I blame him for possessing the hand/eye coordination and presence of mind to pull off that ridiculous slide cum racquet-juggle thingimajig, where he somehow avoids injury by landing on his bottom. 

I blame him for committing a grand total of only seven UFEs over the course of the entire match – zero in the second set.

I blame all those that appear all too willing to ignore this (and all too eager to rip on Murray instead).




I blame him for being unbearably gracious in both winning and losing ("Andy didn't win a Grand Slam today, but he is much better player than some who won a Grand Slam in past. This is true”)

I blame all those that say: “This is what champions do…”.  Sorry, but that means *nothing* to me. Is it meant to make me feel better? Champions also have bad days at the office, champions also get “slamdunked” by the likes of Jo-Wilfried, champions also get mono, champions suffer slumps, champions suffer life-threatening illnesses, champions sometimes step on glass, champions have been known to dabble with class-A drugs, champions also use the pooper. In other words they’re sometimes just like the rest of us. But Rafa wasn’t today.



I blame Rafa’s mum for robbing me of what little remaining composure I’d managed to retain with the way she justly applauded what was very evidently Murray’s last stand, mere seconds before he inevitably, inexorably went crashing out.

I blame all those who said Murray displayed “no energy” out there, but would, undoubtedly, in a flash, have crucified him for baring his fangs if he did show more desire.


I blame all those self-loathing Brits who categorise the best player we’ve had since the 2nd world war as “shit”. No really. “Shit”…..for losing to Rafael Nadal – who hasn’t lost a match here since 2007.

I blame all those that continue to bark on about his “passive play” – but are unable, or unwilling, to acknowledge the guts and resolve needed to play with the type of aggression that is, quite frankly, out of his element and against the natural grain of his game and temperament. So much so that, in his words, he “probably got the balance of aggression and patience wrong…”, and “went too aggressive this time…”

I blame them all.

And I continue to believe, even though I honestly don’t know what the phrase “only a matter of time” OR “too good not to win a Slam” mean anymore. Quite frankly, winning a Slam, at this point, seems anything BUT inevitable – and that seems as good a reason as any to back him.



I will go down with this ship EVERY time he falls short of winning one of these things, unless and until he does. :(

Read More...

Wimbledon: On what PLANET is this a faulty rankings system?

 

 
I’m not kidding: there’s actually folks complaining about this.

A Slam, four Masters Titles and only ONE match lost since November last year – to Roger Federer playing somewhere at his best. Yeah, I'd say the right guy is at the top of the rankings. Read More...

Wimbledon: Petra ‘Erratica’

This is the future of tennis. And it has 40 Winners (to Vikas 9) and 9 aces (to Vikas 1), etched into it. Love it, or make your peace with it – but find better things to talk about than grunting or yelping or screeching.

Much as I abhor the expression, this match was always going to be won (or lost) on Petras racquet.

The first set took all of 27 minutes – pretty long when you consider Vika was only able to salvage one game out of it.

Petra served it out with three aces: on her racquet, with her racquet, all about her racquet.

And then came an erratic stretch of play which, in my mind, will, ultimately, decide the winner in Saturday’s final – and, indeed, determine how many titles she notches up in the future.

You see, as wonderful as it is that Petra is able to decontextualise herself from a poor spell of play (she hardly ever berates herself), or any single UFE, it also means she takes little or no corrective action. Most of the time it doesn’t seem like she’s alert to anything awry at all.

Her most telling look came at 3-5 down with Vika serving for the 2nd set. The bemused disappointment was simply priceless: it only just seemed to have dawned on her that shunting every ball into the stands wasn’t such a fine idea, or that her little foray into ‘Erratica’ may have cost her the set – perhaps even the match [Ya big talented Silly]

Pova’s no Vika – she hits the ball as hard as anyone out there, and is second to none in gutsing out tight matches when she’s not playing her best. Which she quite clearly isn’t. And that concern over Pova’s form, together with how much erratica Petra brings to bear, is what will probably end up deciding this match.

Berd said Petra could go all the way. He's right. And I think she probably will.

Unforgivably subjective, but if we go on expressions alone, I don’t think there was anyone in the semis that wanted it more. No one, but no one, wears the face of anguish and desire the way she does.

I don’t wanna have to resign myself to seeing Vika go out in a spate of semis now that she's got the ‘quarterenka’ monkey off her back. Ergo, I still believe. :(

Maria Sharapova is back in her first Slam final since 2008.  But if she serves the way she did today, she might lose the entire match quicker than Vika lost the first set. Petra’s my first choice – there’s simply too much dorkish promise –  but I won’t be unhappy if this woman pulls it off.

Only an obnoxious neanderthal will be insensitive to Sabine’s troubles, or ambivalent to her triumphing over them. So I’m gonna to the kind thing and just put the match behind us.

Nothing is to be gained by revisiting the carnage, except to say that Pova really wasn’t playing well enough to win it against better competition, in which I include the Sabine from the early rounds – she didn’t show up.

Of course, if I wanted to be spiteful I could bring up Marion, whom you deprived of a SF spot and who I’m convinced would have given a better account of herself….*continues bitching as editing team effect a fade out*

Read More...

Wimbledon: “Flying forehands”

 

This is the tweet that first got my attention. I was busy with the Tomic/Nole match, figuring on a trouble free passage for Fed through to the semis.

The Wimbledon TweetMaster has been quite “excitable” this past week, but this was colourful even by their standards.

The trouble is, I could actually picture Jo hitting a “flying forehand” winner down the line. He may not do it as often we’d like, given his well-documented injuries and resulting problems with form, but there’s no doubting that that’s precisely the type of flamboyance he’s known for. And it usually spells trouble for his opponents.




I can’t say I’m completely clear as to what happened next – I’m sure if they took a brain scan of someone undergoing a hallucinogenic experience and compared with my own during the last two sets, they’d be very similar. 

It was the kind of pandemonium that would have left a player lesser than Fed browbeaten, disoriented and with scorch marks on the fabric of their soul. Fed fared only slightly better and did what we could, but, really, no one stops Jo when he’s tripping this way.

The defining moment came when Jo broke free of even his own natural rhythms and passed Fed at the net with a single-handed backhand winner down the line.

I’m gonna say that again: Jo passed Fed at the net with a single-handed backhand winner down the line.


 

It was that kind of match. It was that kind of electricity

And if he continues to play that way, Jo ain’t going down to no one.

The utter tragedy is that he probably won’t.

Read More...

Wimbledon: Upset Potential

Say what you like. I don’t think all of the top four will make it to the semis.
 
Whether its the doubt created by Rafa’s not-quite-injured foot, Feli “having one of those days” (perhaps we should start saying “weeks”), Jo-Wilfried operating in “Slamdunk Mode”, or Tomic….being Tomic, there’s at least enough upset potential there to conceive of one upset.

You read it here first.

Read More...

Wimbledon: The stuff Slams are made of.

Lisicki d. Bartoli 6-4 6-7 6-1

You just can’t play two 3 setters in week one (one of which goes 9-7 in the third), follow that up with an emotionally-consuming win over one of the greatest players of all time, and then expect to be at your optimal level only 24 hours later.

That’s a big ask for anyone, let alone Marion.

Having played that much, I don’t think I’m reaching when I say that she could have done with the extra days rest – or that it could have been a very different result had she had that rest.

Coulda-shoulda-woulda….this is the stuff Slams are made of.  You might even argue the mental cost associated with pulling off a win over Serena sapped her of more vitality than any number of 3 setters would.

My guess is she knew that only too well – happy, presumably, with beating Serena to stand as her crowning achievement at this event: not only did she not fail to compete, she actually dialled up the fire further still. Until, that is, her legs would carry her no more.

That takes “More balls than all the French men put together”, as someone said on twitter yesterday.

 

And for that, as always, she has my respect.




I don’t know if I quite buy into Sabine as the “deserving cause”, and I’m still not completely reconciled to her having knocked out my fave (*snarl*), but you have no soul if you’re not pleased at her return.

Can she keep it going? Probably. Will it be enough against Pova? I rather doubt it. Certainly not if Pova plays the way she did vs. Domi.

Perhaps sensing the electricity that Domi sometimes brings to bear (see Wozniacki), Pova squashed any pretensions to “competition” Domi might have had within the opening few games. Alas poor munchkin, she never had a chance.




Petra played her worst match of the tournament today. There’s a cost/benefit analysis you might choose to make whenever something like this happens.

On the one hand, she got through and will likely emerge more battle-hardened as a result, which should set her in good stead for the semis.

Trouble is, Petra’s never really fit that mould. She seems to thrive on quick wins based on strutting her very capable stuff. Today’s troublesome encounter is neither “empowering”, nor should it be seen as very much more than a minor irritant. She may very well go down to Vika, or (as I rather suspect) she may knock her out – either way today’s episode will have had little to do with it.

Read More...

Wimbledon: Reckless

Cibulkova d. Wozniacki 1-6, 7-6, 7-5

I make no secret of my love for diminutive firecrackers – its one of many weaknesses.

This was supposed to be the worst possible match up for her – Caro’s dogged resilience in eliciting errors from her opponents by getting them to play that dreaded “one more ball”, is supposed to be anthema to someone as reckless as Domi.

But somehow, it didn’t turn out that way. She was still as reckless as hell, but seemed to be less insistent on hitting the lines on every single shot, opting instead for a more measured (but equally aggressive) ball sent some 80% up the court.

I don’t know if that was a conscious decision (maybe something Zeljko introduced), but it worked a treat. It allowed her to construct rallies on her terms instead of simply going for broke on everything – that’s not something you normally see from her.

As for Caro, she was said to have turned up to her presser “beet red”, and went on to castigate herself for “not making more of her break point opportunities”. I hope that means she’s sensed a need to grow beyond being content merely eliciting errors (funny as it may sound, I actually want to see her improve) – it’s pretty frightening if it means anything else.

Besides, Domi won’t be the last player to call that particular bluff – Julia’s already done so twice in the last two months.

Read More...

Wimbledon: His name is ‘Bernard’ and other week one curiosities.

Ok look, I can’t promise I’m gonna stop poking fun (not in the short term), but we can’t go on pretending he’s not a serious talent.

And what’s more is, he’s probably the future of Aussie Tennis. If, as an Aussie, such a prospect fills you with mortal fear, you should probably consider switching nationalities, as it may happen sooner than you or I think.

All that stuff about him being an irritant? Probably still true, but there’s still time to “man up”, and here’s a sobering truth: Tennis Australia needs Bernard Tomic, not vice versa.

I’m not saying he’s the “next big thing”. Would never hit you with something as tawdry as that. And of course there’s room for improvement:  I’ve heard criticisms about the movement – Pat Cash went as far as to say he plays “like a junior….like Andy Murray” (one in the same I presume). Tignor has him going “even further into the funky” than, say, someone like Dolgopolov.



But none of this detracts from the eclectic blend of junk and easy flamboyance that seems to serve him so well. Nor from his ability to keep cool under pressure. Nor does the fact that a stomach bug Sod contracted was causing him to break out in a cold sweat, double over in between points (sometimes even having to sit down) and have a well-documented (too well documented) episode of liquid poo – almost certainly causing  him to squander the first set and a half.

Just like Robson against Pova a day earlier, a lesser player wouldn’t have worked their opponent’s “flatulence” so well.

I can’t help feeling a public endorsement from the likes of Hewitt and Rafter would benefit his tattered image (particularly amongst fans). It seems steps have already been taken with both showing up at his matches, and Rafter even being said to provide tactical input.

The efforts to legitimise Bernard begin here. And I’m gonna start by calling him ‘Bernard’. How’d a hobgoblin end up with a name as wholesome as that anyway?



-- Loving what I’ve seen from both the Williamses. Serena seems to be improving every match (that she’s able to win anything at all, is itself remarkable), and Venus seems to have that electricity about her that usually spells trouble for the rest of the draw.

Still, it’s early days and, Kimiko and Aravane aside, they haven’t really been tested. Can still see both of them running into trouble if things get tight. And I’m still leaning to Venus over her sister.



-- Andy Roddick’s best days are behind him. His last best crack at winning here (and surely any Slam) came and went in 2009 under a flurry of 50 aces and only 4 double faults.

We all know this. But for some reason, we’ve begun pretending that Feli making 57 winners and only 7 UFEs wouldn’t have had exactly the same result against any number of top ten players – perhaps only excluding the top three.

That’s no reason to act like he should quit or, in even poorer taste , to goad him into doing so (as one reporter seemed intent on) – perhaps I expect too much.

That said, if the fire’s gone, it ain’t gonna spontaneously re-combust. Let him decide – and give him room to do so.

Aside:  I will never say ‘Deliciano’. Not ever.  In any case, I much prefer Rafter’s invention, ‘Felix’.



-- No one’s talking about Shuai Peng. That’s probably a good thing. Her R16 match against Pova will answer a lot of questions about both women.

-- In contrast, everyone’s talking about Delpo – mostly in terms of how he WILL go down to Rafa. That seems the likeliest outcome – but I still insist that an upset isn’t anywhere near the “long shot” being suggested. Not by a long shot.

-- Didn’t follow the Gimelstob/Feli bust up very much. It’s the kind of episode that holds very little interest for me and tends to bring out the worst in even the most respected commentators.

The man is very obviously a twat – which probably accounts for his position on the ATP Board of Directors.

Read More...