Wimbledon 2011 thread

[Marley23]

This year's Wimbledon starts on Monday, and the seedings are out. (http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/articles/2011-06-15/201106151308128657255.html) The draw will be held Friday, and after that it'll be easier to see who has the best chance to win. Even without the draw, there's little reason to look outside the top three for the men, and for the women, who the hell knows. Clijsters, unfortunately, reinjured her ankle and withdrew today. I wonder if we'll see her again before 2013, although I figure she will try to play in the U.S. Open.

Wimbledon is the only one of the majors that doesn't automatically seed the players according to their rankings (based on the rankings a couple of weeks before the tournament). They explain their system and not that Tsonga, Llorda, and Tipsarevic were moved up several spots based on their past play on grass. Chela, Raonic, and Nalbandian moved down a few spots.

Just when you thought the women's side couldn't get any more unpredictable, the Williams sisters are back. Serena played two matches this week - she won one three-setter and then lost in another - and those are the only tour matches she's played since winning Wimbledon last year. She's ranked 26 and seeded #7 based on having women Wimbledon four times. Venus' is seeded 23rd, having won five times.

John Isner is not seeded. I am not sure about Nicolas Mahut's status. He didn't get a wildcard, and based on his ranking, he should be one of the seeds in qualifying play, but I don't see his name there. I can't be the only one hoping they somehow end up playing each other again.

[notfrommensa]

Seeding Serena and Venus is the right thing to do. IMO. Very possible that a top seed could have faced Serena or Venus in the first round. heck, it would have been possible that they could have faced each other in the first round. (1 in 127). If they do not make a big run in this tournament, and don't play again until NYC, they will be unseeded at US Open.

[Mahaloth]

Make your early picks, then.

I'd say:

Federer

and

Venus Williams

[Marley23]

Seeding Serena and Venus is the right thing to do. IMO.
I agree with moving them up. Serena would have been seeded anyway and Venus might have just sneaked in there at 32. I just think it's interesting to see where they decided to place them. They've kicked a lot of as at Wimbledon in the past, that's for sure. I don't know if they can win the tournament with this little preparation, but nobody else is dominating right now.

[Cicero]

Why wouldn't we see Clijsters until 2013 if she just twisted an ankle?

I'd have to agree about the top three in the mens round.

The women? Impossible.

[Marley23]

Why wouldn't we see Clijsters until 2013 if she just twisted an ankle?
It's not just a twisted ankle. She hurt her it pretty badly in April- tore a couple of ligaments among other things. She aggravated the injury again this past week. Clijsters has been saying that she is likely to cut back on her playing after this year. I think the implication is that she wants to have another baby. My reckoning is that if the ankle recovers this summer, she'll play the U.S. Open, then take a break, have a baby, and maybe be back in 2013. If it doesn't recover, the time frame on that might be moved up a little.

[Cicero]

Thanks Marley. I had to shoot that off before I proof read it as the kitchen guy turned up.

I'm trying to get my mind around how Henin and Clijsters can take considerable time off and come back and win majors- same with the Williams sisters I guess. I can't say it is recent as I recall Evonne Cawley (Goolagong) winning a major after having a baby.

I can't recall a male player coming back after such a long lay off. I wait for someone to prve me wrong. :)

[Marley23]

Henin didn't win any more majors in her comeback, but for both of them, I think it was primarily mental. They already knew they had the ability to win majors and compete with the best players on tour, and their time off really seemed to help them enjoy the game more. Henin in particular was famous for her unrelenting focus and when she retired she was simply burned out. Clijsters has a very athletic game and I think her body took a real beating, so time off probably helped her there. And she no longer had to worry about all that 'too nice to win' nonsense.

I can't really think of a guy who went through something comparable. This doesn't seem to be something they struggle with to the same extent some of the women do. The closest might be Agassi, whose desire to play really came and went a few times in his career. He did recommit himself and when he decided he was going to play because he enjoyed it, he was able to train very hard and continue playing long after some of his contemporaries had retired. And for much of that time, he was playing at a very high level.

[notfrommensa]

Tennis Gods have a sick sense of humor. Isner/Mahut are matched up in the first round.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Tennis Gods have a sick sense of humor. Isner/Mahut are matched up in the first round.

Sick? Not at all. That was one of the best things that ever happened to tennis. Wouldn't it be something if they took every set to tiebreakers, though?

I'm curious about what's going to happen before the match starts. I'm sure there will be some sort of recognition and perhaps some humorous self-awareness from the players.

[Marley23]

Knock me over with a feather. That's just too great. ESPN's story includes video of the draw. It's worth it to see everyone's response to Mahut's name being drawn. (http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon11/news/story?id=6671887)

I wonder where they will play this match. Are they big enough names to play on one of the main courts? The other humorous thing is that they'll play on Tuesday. Too bad they couldn't start on Monday just in case.

[maplekiwi]

Who is everyone backing?

Ladies' singles Schiavone
Gentlemen's singles Federer
Ladies' Doubles Stosur & Lisicki
Gentlemen's Doubles Tecau & Lindstrom

I'm hoping that Kiwi Erakovic will make it till the 3rd round.

I would love to see the Isner- Mahut clash but time differences mean I probably won't.

[Marley23]

Hi maplekiwi, I merged your post into the thread I started last week- hope that's alright. I think it's going to be interesting for the men because we'll get to see if Djokovic can improve on his grass court record and Federer can continue the bounceback we saw in Paris. I think Nadal's section looks somewhat challenging. He could get Raonic in the third roundand the grass might work for Raonic's huge game. He could get del Potro in the fourth. For the women, same as ever, nobody knows what's going to happen. The Williamses are so much better on grass than everyone else that it's not even funny, but we don't know if they're healthy enough to finish the tournament. While I'd like to see Schiavone do well, her record at Wimbledon is pretty bad. She's 11-10 there in her career. She made the quarterfinals in 2009, other than that, she's only been as far as the third round once.

Nadal starts things off today against Russell (youngish American player), with Schiavone playing Dokic after that. Venus also starts around 7, with Roddick, Berdych, and Raonic playing later.

Meanwhile I love the heavy exposure ESPN is giving to Isner-Mahut II. They talked about it all weekend and they're showing it live (7 a.m. Eastern) tomorrow morning.

[Biffer_Spice]

gonna be a real interesting one this year. no longer just fed vs nadal, djokovic is a real threat, playing the best tennis anyone's played this year. and murray has got one in him, as long as the others don't hit their very best heights. i do think that to win he'll have to beat two of those three, and that would probably prove too much, but you never know. my money, as ever, is on nadal, but i hope it's a romp of a tournament

[Marley23]

Murray does have it in him to win a major if he can keep it together mentally, but he has a better shot in Melbourne or New York than at Wimbledon.

[Marley23]

Nadal starts things off today against Russell (youngish American player)
I read his bio incorrectly - Russell is a 33-year-old journeyman. Russell is up 4-2 in the first set but it looks like Nadal could get the break back in a minute.

[eenerms]

I read his bio incorrectly - Russell is a 33-year-old journeyman. Russell is up 4-2 in the first set but it looks like Nadal could get the break back in a minute.

Two double faults in a row for a break..after coming from love thirty!!

[maplekiwi]

Hi maplekiwi, I merged your post into the thread I started last week- hope that's alright. I think it's going to be interesting for the men because we'll get to see if Djokovic can improve on his grass court record and Federer can continue the bounceback we saw in Paris. I think Nadal's section looks somewhat challenging. He could get Raonic in the third roundand the grass might work for Raonic's huge game. He could get del Potro in the fourth. For the women, same as ever, nobody knows what's going to happen. The Williamses are so much better on grass than everyone else that it's not even funny, but we don't know if they're healthy enough to finish the tournament. While I'd like to see Schiavone do well, her record at Wimbledon is pretty bad. She's 11-10 there in her career. She made the quarterfinals in 2009, other than that, she's only been as far as the third round once.

Nadal starts things off today against Russell (youngish American player), with Schiavone playing Dokic after that. Venus also starts around 7, with Roddick, Berdych, and Raonic playing later.

Meanwhile I love the heavy exposure ESPN is giving to Isner-Mahut II. They talked about it all weekend and they're showing it live (7 a.m. Eastern) tomorrow morning.

No problem Marley. I scrolled down before posting my thread, but somehow missed yours.

Isner-Mahut is going to be on Court 3. That means its unlikely to get shown over here. But you never know.

I don't start work till 1pm tomorrow, so I may try to catch some of the (for me) early morning games.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Meh. I'm gonna make it easy on myself:

Men's Singles - Nadal
Women's Singles - Wozniacki

[Marley23]

Serena won in three sets, and spent a minute crying into her towel after the match was over. Other early winners included Erakovic, Kvitova, Petkovic, and on the men's side, Del Potro, Chela, and Karlovic, when Tipsarevic had to retire. Jankovic lost, and Verdasco is in trouble. Roddick is closing in on a straight-sets win.

[Marley23]

Verdasco rallied from two sets down to beat Stepanek. He won 9-7 in the fifth. Federer is now up two sets on Kukushkin (who sounds like a character from a Chekhov knockoff), but it's been fairly close. They went to a tiebreak in the first and Federer got a single break in the second. Isner and Mahut are supposed to play after Ferrer and Paire, which just started.

[Marley23]

Isner and Mahut will be taking the court soon.

[notfrommensa]

and Mahut and Isner are on Serve. (who would have thought that?) Still eary 2-2. If this match goes five sets, good chance it will be finished tomorrow (maybe). about 3 hrs of daylight left in London.

[Marley23]

Sunset in London is at 9:21 p.m. today, so that gives them about two and a half hours of daylight. They got lucky that Ferrer's match was quick and they could fit this one in if it doesn't go too long. But, uh...

[notfrommensa]

I think there is enough twilight where they can play for 30-40 minutes after sunset, especially if it is not cloudy. Summer solstice is today?. And Civil Twilight ends at 10:09 pm London time. and the first set goes to a tiebreaker.

[Marley23]

And the first set goes to a tiebreak, of course. What I love about the match so far is that you know there's no way it's going to last anything close to as long as the first one, but you can't quite vanquish the doubt that it might happen again. At least, I can't. In any case Isner is up 5-1 in the tiebreak and about to serve again. Last time, only the third and fourth sets went to tiebreaks.

I think there is enough twilight where they can play for 30-40 minutes after sunset, especially if it is not cloudy. Summer solstice is today?
Yes, it's the longest day of the year. Maybe that's not an accident of scheduling. ;)

[maplekiwi]

Aaarrrggghhh, TV1 won the rights to cover Wimbledon, which means bang on 6am coverage ceased.

I can't believe the organisers only put Isner/mahut on Court 3. This had to be more interesting than watching Novak walk all over Chardy. They then whiched to Soderling/Petchner which was an interesting struggle.

I'm on th eLive Score now & Isner/Mahut are on a tie breaker in the first set.

Edit - yes, great that Erakovic won. Hanuchova (sp) next. Tough but on grass not unbeatable for Erakovic.

[maplekiwi]

& it looks like the Soderling/Petchner match got interesting, right after our coverage ceased. Petchner 5-2 up in the third set.

[notfrommensa]

Summer Solstice, most daylight hours, but not the latest sunset. Sunset in London is at 9:22 pm for the next 6 days after today. Later sunrises.

[Marley23]

& it looks like the Soderling/Petchner match got interesting, right after our coverage ceased. Petchner 5-2 up in the third set.
Petzschner won the set. Meanwhile Isner got the first break of the match and leads 4-1 in the second set.

[maplekiwi]

Petzschner won the set. Meanwhile Isner got the first break of the match and leads 4-1 in the second set.

Which he won. Now Mahut looks like going up 2 breaks in the second set.

Just out of curiousity Marley how many channels are covering Wimbledon where you are?

[maplekiwi]

Where did that third set lead go, Mahut? :confused:

[Marley23]

Just out of curiousity Marley how many channels are covering Wimbledon where you are?
I watched on ESPN 2 when I could, and sometimes I checked the Wimbledon website. I still haven't gotten around to getting the Tennis Channel but I'm guessing that if ESPN has it, they don't.

[Dead Cat]

What I love about the match so far is that you know there's no way it's going to last anything close to as long as the first one, but you can't quite vanquish the doubt that it might happen again. At least, I can't.Me too :). As it turned out, it was an anti-climax, of course. Isner looked pretty efficient, I think he could challenge some of the lower seeds if he really hits form.

[Marley23]

It was an anti-climax, but the thing that stuck out to me is that this whole thing wasn't fun for the players. You could see it in the way Mahut played, I thought, and when they interviewed Isner afterward he said he was just relieved to get it over with. This was evidently a tough thing for them to relive and revisit.

Venus is having trouble this morning. She's down 1-5 to Date-Krumm in the first set.

[eenerms]

That Venus Date-Krumm match was some good tennis!

[Marley23]

Yup, that was a really good one.

[Mahaloth]

That Venus Date-Krumm match was some good tennis!

I keep forgetting Date-Krumm is 40 years old. She looks and plays great.

[eenerms]

Soderling v. Hewitt there's some good tennis!

[notfrommensa]

Just watching some the Soderling-Hewitt match. Hewitt is now 30 yrs old. He still looks very fit but his face looks like it is about 55. Looking up his ranking, he is 130th and the top ranked Australian man. 130th? And I thought American tennis was in the crapper.

[Tom Scud]

Hewitt is pretty much Exhibit 1A (Borg is Exhibit 1) of "Tennis is a young man's game."

[Marley23]

Hewitt is six months older than Federer. He's had injury problems and was always pretty one-dimensional. He's a lesser version of what Nadal would have been if Nadal had not been so relentless about adapting his game to every surface and continually improving. As it was, Hewitt played very hard and peaked at the right time - as the Sampras-Agassi generation was in decline, the next generation failed to take off, and other players his age hadn't matured yet. All that being said, this is a really good match and Hewitt has continued to be a good grass player while Soderling isn't, despite the big serve and forehand.

[eenerms]

Thought the Soderling Hewitt would go longer, Hewitt couldn't hold serve the final three sets...oh well heard he's retiring anyway.

[Mahaloth]

I wonder if Hewitt will hold on to play the Olympics next year.

[Marley23]

Here's a match I'm glad ESPN is airing: Tsonga vs. Dimitrov. Dimitrov is supposed to be one of the most promising young players out there - presumptuous as it is, some people call him 'Baby Federer' - and he's currently ranked 62. Dimitrov won the first set, but Tsonga is up 4-2 in the second.

[Marley23]

Dimitrov and Tsonga are even at 1-all, 3-3 in the second set. Isner, meanwhile, is playing his fourth tiebreak in five sets at Wimbledon. Almagro got the first set and they're on serve in the second tiebreak. Isner is kind of a glutton for punishment as far as this stuff goes. His serve is incredibly hard to handle but his return game isn't much of a threat, so he plays these long sets in match after match.

Almagro just took the second set tiebreak, so now Isner is really in the hole despite having not dropped serve in this match. He hasn't even gotten to break point against Almagro.

[Marley23]

Li has served for the match twice against Lisicki, but Lisicki now has two match points at 7-6 in the third...

And Lisicki completes the upset comeback on her third match point!

[eenerms]

Roddick is 2 sets down to Lopez...

[Marley23]

Serving to stay in the match, in fact.

[Cicero]

I don't follow tennis that much anymore, but I expected him (Roddick) to achieve so much more than he has. Doubtless he will console himself with the millions he has made.

[Mahaloth]

I don't follow tennis that much anymore, but I expected him (Roddick) to achieve so much more than he has. Doubtless he will console himself with the millions he has made.

Everyone did, but then along came Federer and Nadal(and Djokovic).

He could have won 5 or more majors without those guys.

[eenerms]

Oh well..poor Andy...

[Marley23]

I don't follow tennis that much anymore, but I expected him (Roddick) to achieve so much more than he has. Doubtless he will console himself with the millions he has made.
And his swimsuit model wife. I think Roddick has done about as much as he could have with his game. He's done a lot to work on his play and he's been frustrated by guys who are objectively a lot better than he is. Yes, you would have expected more when he won the U.S. Open and got to #1 in the world at 21. But who expected Federer to become what he became? He's beaten Roddick in four major finals. Roddick has finished in the top 10 ever year since 2002 and I think he's won at least one title ever year since then. The only other guy who's been winning that long is Federer.

That being said, Roddick hasn't even reached the quarters at a Slam since Australia last year. His results at every major have declined for two years in a row. At this point it's clear his days of competing in major tournaments are in the rear view mirror.

[Tom Scud]

Yeah, Roddick had the misfortune that what should have been his prime came when nobody could beat Federer except on clay, and few people even there.

[Cicero]

Decline? Not while Leyton Hewitt is still running around. And I see Mardy Fish is fronting again. That guy seems to have been around forever.

In the paper last weekend they had an interview with Pat Rafter. He does seem like a really nice guy- they featured his Wimbledon loss to whats his name.

[Marley23]

Decline? Not while Leyton Hewitt is still running around. And I see Mardy Fish is fronting again. That guy seems to have been around forever.
I didn't say he's about to retire. I said he's not a threat to win any more majors- which was true a few years ago, but at this point he's losing early even at Wimbledon and New York. The results speak for themselves. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Roddick_career_statistics#Singles_Performance_table)

[Tom Scud]

28 is pretty old in tennis. You have to be a spectacular talent, a fitness freak, or both (Lendl & Agassi) to win after 30.

[Marley23]

Speaking of older players, Venus kicked some butt just now (she won 0 & 2) and gets a rematch against Pironkova, who beat her in the quarters last year.

[eenerms]

Will Andy Murray EVER grow up???

[maplekiwi]

If Roddick is still getting Centre or Number 1 Court then I can see Serena's sexism claims having some validity.

I saw the last hour or so of Murray's game. Good game other than Murray's second serve was lifeless.

We are getting the British commentary & I'm enjoying listening to McEnroe!

I've looked on the draws & seen Erakovic & her partner must have got through in the doubles as LL & won their first round match

[Marley23]

Yeah, Serena would seem to have a point there. Roddick is a star, but so is she, and she's done much more winning in recent years.

Here are the highlights of Federer's match the other day. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aSk0qql2WQ&NR=1) I forget how to link to a time stamp within a YouTube video, but I think everybody who likes tennis should see the shot he hits on match point. He didn't need to take the ball where he did. I think he just did it to challenge himself and do something spectacular. It's a hell of a shot but it's the exuberance of it that makes me smile.

[maplekiwi]

Yeah, Serena would seem to have a point there. Roddick is a star, but so is she, and she's done much more winning in recent years.

Here are the highlights of Federer's match the other day. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aSk0qql2WQ&NR=1) I forget how to link to a time stamp within a YouTube video, but I think everybody who likes tennis should see the shot he hits on match point. He didn't need to take the ball where he did. I think he just did it to challenge himself and do something spectacular. It's a hell of a shot but it's the exuberance of it that makes me smile.

<embittered snarl> TVNZ has now put Wimby on TVNZ 7 after 6am - but mid point in this game my screen went black & then they switched to a children's programme. I guess they felt there was no point staying with this game as Mannarino had no chance of winning, but I was enjoying it dammit! </embittered snarl/>

This morning they did stick with the Murray Ljubcic (sp) game.

Going back to Roddick. I like him,but if Iwas lucky enough to be at Wimbledon & was offered a chance to see either him play or one of the Williams sisters, I know what I would chose.

[Evil Captor]

Man, sitting here with a cup of hot coffee in front of me and Wimbledon on TV and an unfettered afternoon ahead of me ... life is Goooooood.

[Mahaloth]

Man, sitting here with a cup of hot coffee in front of me and Wimbledon on TV and an unfettered afternoon ahead of me ... life is Goooooood.

Amen. I do love all day tennis days. :)

[eenerms]

Amen. I do love all day tennis days. :)

Ah yeah:):)

[Mahaloth]

Soderling has lost in straight sets to Tomic, a new guy worth keeping an eye on.

[Chicagojeff]

Everyone did, but then along came Federer and Nadal(and Djokovic).

He could have won 5 or more majors without those guys.



Really? This sounds ridiculous.. Who might have won a few Wimbledon's if Borg hadn't been around.. or Sampras..

I hear this in Basketball when people are trying to defend Karl Malone and Charles Barkley..

Andy's always been too one dimensional and much more skilled players came along and beat him at pretty much every turn. My question is where's the next group.. cause i really hope John Isner isn't all their is..

[maplekiwi]

The Djokovic - Baghdatis was exciting stuff. I can't help it, I wanted Baggy to win! So much charisma...

Schiavone out of the women's so thats one prediction wrong. I'm just off to the Wimbledon site to see if my doubles' predictions are still alive!

[Marley23]

Really? This sounds ridiculous.. Who might have won a few Wimbledon's if Borg hadn't been around.. or Sampras..
You never know what would happen if some people were removed from history, the draws would be different, and blah blah blah. But given Roddick's results over the years I think it's reasonable to say that if Federer hadn't come along, he definitely could have won three or four Wimbledons and maybe another U.S. Open or two. Federer beat Roddick in the Wimbledon final three times, the U.S. Open final once, and in three other major semifinals (two Australian Opens, one Wimbledon).

In other words, Roddick has reached five slam finals in his career. He won one and lost to Federer the other four times. He's lost in the semifinals five other times, and three of them were against Federer. The others were against Schuttler in the 2003 Australian Open - that was the match after Roddick beat El Aynaoui in one of the longest matches ever, 21-19 in the fifth - and against Hewitt in the '05 Australian Open. In a world without Federer, Roddick's career totals are about one step below Andre Agassi's, although if you ask me who is better, it's Agassi by a longshot.

I hear this in Basketball when people are trying to defend Karl Malone and Charles Barkley..
Malone and Barkley are all-time greats who don't need a defense. Their stature in basketball also exceeds Roddick's in tennis, if you ask me.

Andy's always been too one dimensional and much more skilled players came along and beat him at pretty much every turn.
This sentence would be far more accurate if your replaced "much more skilled players" with "Federer."

[Marley23]

After struggling against Hewitt last time, Soderling lost today to Tomic, another Australian. Tomic started getting noticed this year when he made the third round in Melbourne, and he's still only 18. Biggest win of his career so far. He gets Malisse next and he has a good chance there. Del Potro and Nadal could get very interesting, too.

No tennis tomorrow for middle Sunday.

[Mahaloth]

Really? This sounds ridiculous.. Who might have won a few Wimbledon's if Borg hadn't been around.. or Sampras..

I hear this in Basketball when people are trying to defend Karl Malone and Charles Barkley..

Andy's always been too one dimensional and much more skilled players came along and beat him at pretty much every turn. My question is where's the next group.. cause i really hope John Isner isn't all their is..

Uh, calm down and there is no need to call what I said ridiculous.

I'm not defending Andy. I'm just saying what happened to him. If he'd played in the late 1980's and early 90's, I think he could have won the Australian and US Open a couple more times.

[PunditLisa]

Ooh, ooh, I want to play the "If only" game, too! In looking at replays of old matches, had I played tennis during my prime in the 70's, *I* have no doubt I'd have been able to beat Chris Evert. If only I could have been able to keep my sweet 2010 Dunlop Aerogel racquet. :)

I'm enjoying the coverage, but speaking of Chris Evert, I actually don't like her as a commentator. She gives some good insight, I suppose, but she doesn't have a television personality. She puts me right to sleep. She's too, I don't know, sober. Give me Mary Carillo or Martina Navratilova any day!

Federer is looking really sharp. And he's getting hungrier by the day to prove that he can keep winning the big ones. Maybe that will help overcome the domestic bliss handicap that plagues the top men.

I didn't get to see any of the Djokovic match, but I was surprised to see that Baghdatis was able to take a set off of him.

Goooo Mardy Fish!

I've been on vacation so I haven't been able to see most of the matches, but I'm hoping that the draw will eventually allow a Wozniacki v. Serena Williams match-up.

[Chicagojeff]

Uh, calm down and there is no need to call what I said ridiculous.

I'm not defending Andy. I'm just saying what happened to him. If he'd played in the late 1980's and early 90's, I think he could have won the Australian and US Open a couple more times.


Ahh i plead guilty to the hyperbolic nature of the internet. I apologize as ridiculous is far too extreme. Perhaps I should stop reading posts in the Pit for awhile.

You're probably correct that in a down time Roddick could have been far more successful. The issue that frustrates me about Andy is that i never saw him widen his game more. While Roger clearly has more shots than Andy.. their were times when i felt that he really should have gotten through..

[Mahaloth]

You're probably correct that in a down time Roddick could have been far more successful. The issue that frustrates me about Andy is that i never saw him widen his game more. While Roger clearly has more shots than Andy.. their were times when i felt that he really should have gotten through..

He outplayed Roger in the Wimbledon final two years ago. I mean, when he was winning, he was really beating Roger. Naturally, though, Roger found ways to sneak back in and outplayed him in the end and won.

That match is still Andy's best ever, even with though he lost.

[Evil Captor]

Y'know, I don't hear many drug scandals coming out of the tennis world. Not like you hear from bicycling and baseball. I wonder why that is? Is it less prevalent, and if so, is it less prevalent because it's less useful, or because it's better enforced, or more laxly enforced?

[Mahaloth]

Y'know, I don't hear many drug scandals coming out of the tennis world. Not like you hear from bicycling and baseball. I wonder why that is? Is it less prevalent, and if so, is it less prevalent because it's less useful, or because it's better enforced, or more laxly enforced?

Good question. I think the kind of bulk that steroids give you may not be the kind of muscles you need in tennis? Just a wild guess.

The guys do not look steroided up, really.

[PunditLisa]

The most recent drug busts in tennis involve cocaine. A positive test ended Hingis' comeback a few years ago. Gasquet miraculously beat a suspension for cocaine by claiming he kissed a girl who'd done coke. Energy and being slender are big advantages in tennis, as is control (both of the ball and your emotions), so on paper cocaine makes more sense than steroids. Besides, athletes these days have to be super fit to compete on the pro circuit, so there's little room for all-night benders -- not to mention drug tests that could end your career a la Juan Ignacio Chela. Who, incidentally, was banned for taking steroids.

[Evil Captor]

I was thinking drugs that would help with endurance, like blood doping.

[Marley23]

The issue that frustrates me about Andy is that i never saw him widen his game more.
He did, though. He hasn't become a completely different player, but he's strengthened his backhand and tried to play more aggressive tennis. I think the year he made the Wimbledon final again, there was a lot of discussion of the fact that he lost around 15 pounds of muscle because he wanted to be more mobile. He was never all that versatile, but he's tried some different things.

Y'know, I don't hear many drug scandals coming out of the tennis world. Not like you hear from bicycling and baseball. I wonder why that is? Is it less prevalent, and if so, is it less prevalent because it's less useful, or because it's better enforced, or more laxly enforced?
They do test pretty diligently and the punishments can be harsh. It probably helps that there isn't much of a players' union to speak of. The last case I can think of was Wayne Odesnik, who isn't exactly a household name. He was caught with HGH - not in a blood test; I assume customs got him - and he was banned from the tour for a year plus. After something like that you have to work hard to get back into competitive shape and get your ranking back up, because a years' suspension takes away a significant amount of time and all of your ranking points.
When Andre Agassi admitted to using crystal meth a few times in 1994, the real scandal was that he'd been able to avoid a suspension just by lying to the panel that was supposed to be investigating his test results. The players are allowed to claim drug tests are inadvertent, which is fine, but they pretty much accepted his excuse without checking it. It was embarrassing to find it was that easy avoid a suspension for recreational drug use and I think that led to some procedural changes.
I don't think anyone has suggested Hingis and Gasquet were using cocaine to get a competitive edge. That wouldn't make a lot of sense. It would make sense to use HGH or steroids because muscle recovery is extremely important, so you do see people get caught from time to time.

[Cumbrian]

Personally, I reckon it is odds on that some tennis players have blood doped. I have no proof except the following link (unfortunately, it's in Spanish from El Pais).

Long story short, the doctor at the centre of the Operation Puerto drug bust that caught a boatload of cyclists blood doping went to the press, stating that the selection of names to release from the files had been incomplete and that he had worked with soccer and tennis players. It should be noted that the nationality of the doctor/drugs bust operation should not lead anyone to jump to conclusions - one of the cyclists suspended has claimed that he had seen French footballers at the clinic for instance - so the players could be anyone. No names were released.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/deportes/Fuentes/indigna/filtracion/selectiva/elppordep/20060705elpepidep_23/Tes

Looking forward to today's tennis. The weather here is due to be pretty good today but then the weather is likely to break during the week. This could be the last day of uninterrupted tennis and all the remaining players in the singles are due to play today. Should be an excellent day of sport.

[Mahaloth]

Bernard Tomic is through to the round of 8.

Good for him.

[notfrommensa]

Marion Bartoli beats Serena in straight sets. She was hammering the tennis ball. She lost concentration a couple times, but she really kept Serena off balance.

[Marley23]

That was a very good match between Bartoli and Serena. Bartoli had enough consistency and depth on her shots to get the job done. Meanwhile Cibulkova has just upset Wozniacki, so the top three women's seeds are now out. Venus is down a set against Pironkova.

[notfrommensa]

Wozniacki loses and Venus is down a set. #4 Azarenka and #5 Sharapova are the two highest seeds left on the womens side.

[Cumbrian]

Venus now out in straight sets.

The women's draw is opening up as a result - Sharapova is through. Anyone backing her now? The odds must be shortening considerably.

[Marley23]

Yes, it looks great for Sharapova at this point. She's the only player left who has won a major before, and of the others, only Bartoli has even reached a final.

[Cumbrian]

The draw is:

Cibulkova (24) v Sharapova (5)
Lisicki v Bartoli (9)
Paszek v Azarenka (4)
Kvitova (8) v Pironkova (32)

You'd think Sharapova has a great chance now but Bartoli would be a tough semi. The names on the other side of the draw are an utter mystery to me - not being an avid follower of women's tennis (I tend to watch the blokes). I will say that Venus was error strewn today and couldn't put it right at any point. Pironkova had to put her away of course, but this was not a good performance from Williams which aided a player who didn't look all that fantastic to me. I doubt Pironkova will face too many more players who meltdown. As a result, the furthest I can go on the bottom of the draw is that the finalist probably won't be her.

[Marley23]

A couple of the remaining players are highly ranked, Cumbrian - four of them are in the top 10, including Sharapova - but they have not had a lot of success in the grand slam events. Here are everybody's best results at slams.

Sharapova: won Wimbledon ('04), won U.S. Open ('06), won Australian Open ('08).
Cibulkova: French Open semis in 2009. This is her best Wimbledon result.

Lisicki: second Wimbledon quarterfinal ('09), no other major quarterfinals
Bartoli: lost in Wimbledon final in 2007. Made the semis in Paris this year.

Paszek: this is her best Wimbledon and grand slam result.
Azarenka: second Wimbledon quarterfinal ('09), three other major quarterfinals.

Kvitova: semifinals at Wimbledon last year.
Pironkova: Wimbledon semis in 2010, never reached the third round at any other major.

That's kind of amazing from Pironkova. If she's good enough to make the quarters at Wimbledon twice, you'd think she could win two matches in a row at at least one other big event.

[Marley23]

Welp, that shot Nadal just hit is going to be on some highlight reels. It was an over-the-shoulder volley winner as he was running away from the net and Del Potro was trying to close in. Del Potro won the next point with an outstanding lob. He covers so much terrain with that height and the long arms. Anyway they're on serve, 5-4 Nadal in the first set. Djokovic is through to the quarters (he'll play Tomic) and Fish won the first set against Berdych in a tiebreak.

[notfrommensa]

Ladbrokes odds on the womens draw:
M Sharapova 2/1
P Kvitova 5/2
V Azarenka 4/1
S Lisicki 7/1
M Bartoli 9/1
T Pironkova 16/1
D Cibulková 20/1
T Paszek 100/1

I like Bartoli at 9/1 based on how I saw her play against Serena.

[Cumbrian]

Highly ranked they may be but, as I said, I've not seen them much of the bottom half of the draw - I vaguely know Kvitova and Azarenka but today was the first I have ever seen of Pironkova (missed last year's Wimbledon completely).

It's one of the things people have been discussing in the press in the UK - how come there are loads of highly ranked female players with few slams to their names? (The journos seem to be saying, basically, because the Williams sisters and Clijsters are generally good enough to not play tournament events to keep their ranking in the top 5 and still turn up at the slams and beat the rest - I imagine that there is an element of truth but how far it goes I can't really say). Anyway, the quarters are going to a bit of an adventure for me - new people to look at and get to know. Good times.

[eenerms]

Welp, that shot Nadal just hit is going to be on some highlight reels. It was an over-the-shoulder volley winner as he was running away from the net and Del Potro was trying to close in. Del Potro won the next point with an outstanding lob. He covers so much terrain with that height and the long arms. Anyway they're on serve, 5-4 Nadal in the first set. Djokovic is through to the quarters (he'll play Tomic) and Fish won the first set against Berdych in a tiebreak.

BTW was that a time violation called on Nadal..I missed it. Is that why he got upset?

[Cumbrian]

Nadal is sat on his chair being tended by the trainer. Injury to his heel. It is taking a long time to sort out. He doesn't look happy at all. Winning with a knackered foot would be one for the history books. 1st set now going to tie break.

[Mahaloth]

BTW was that a time violation called on Nadal..I missed it. Is that why he got upset?

Yes, a warning I think. They don't super enforce that rule, but he must have been repeatedly dilly dallied.

[notfrommensa]

My NBC affiliate is on Tornado alert. No tennis.

[Marley23]

I don't have the sound on, but I thought Nadal had a blister on his foot. That's a pretty common problem for him, but he seems to be struggling with it here. Struggling is sort of relative here since Nadal just won the first set in a tiebreak when Del Potro double faulted. Meanwhile Youzhny took the first set from Federer in a tiebreak.

[Mahaloth]

I don't have the sound on, but I thought Nadal had a blister on his foot. That's a pretty common problem for him, but he seems to be struggling with it here. Struggling is sort of relative here since Nadal just won the first set in a tiebreak when Del Potro double faulted. Meanwhile Youzhny took the first set from Federer in a tiebreak.

It wasn't a blister, it was by the bone. No idea what it is.

Fed has won the 2nd set.

[Marley23]

That would explain why it would be a bigger problem. Del Potro took the second set 6-3. Youznhy apparently just made Federer angry, as Fed is pushing for a 4-0 lead in the third. And the last U.S. player in the Wimbledon draw, Mardy Fish, beat Berdych in straight sets to reach the quarters. He'll play the Nadal/JMDP winner. Lopez came back from two sets down to beat Kubot, so he gets Murray next.

[Cumbrian]

Nadal does not look comfortable at all to be honest - he's made a few un-Rafa like errors for starters. I reckon the ankle must be giving him some problems and Del Potro is not going away. Worried looks amongst the Nadal camp abounding at the moment.

Mind you he's just haired around the court to retreive a Del Potro volley, so he can still get around.

And now Del Potro has gone down and called the trainer out. It's almost like a heavyweight title fight.

[Marley23]

Del Potro left the court to go to the trainer's room, and now he's back. He looks OK right now and I hope he can pick up where he left off. This was looking like a very good match. Federer won the third set against Youzhny and immediately got a break to start the fourth. In the other unfinished match, Tsonga is up two sets to none on Ferrer.

[Evil Captor]

Damn, sounds like I'm missing a lot of damn fine tennis today!

[Mahaloth]

Damn, sounds like I'm missing a lot of damn fine tennis today!

Biggest single day of tennis in the year. Every top player played.

Fed wins relatively easily.

Nadal wins, but looks hurt.

Djoker wins and looks strong.

Tsonga still looks good.



I still give the edge to Roger.

[Marley23]

With the men off tomorrow and resuming Wednesday, the draw looks like this:

Nadal (1) vs.
Fish (10)

Murray (4) vs.
Lopez

Tsonga (12) vs.
Federer (3)

Tomic vs.
Djokovic (2)

[PunditLisa]

Damn, sounds like I'm missing a lot of damn fine tennis today!

The Tennis Channel has an 8 hour recap beginning at 7pm if you happen to get that channel.

[Evil Captor]

The Tennis Channel has an 8 hour recap beginning at 7pm if you happen to get that channel.

Sadly, I do not.

[notfrommensa]

Rory McIlroy, the US Open (golf) winner a couple of weeks ago, was supposed to be in the Royal Box with Will and Kate. I only saw one shot of Will and Kate in the Royal Box, but the only other person I recognized was Billie Jean King. Did anyone see Rory?

[maplekiwi]

Biggest single day of tennis in the year. Every top player played.



Um... Kim didn't make it.

& as a side note - Erakovic is through to the quarter finals of the ladies' doubles. So nice to see her back in form & uninjured. Sorry - but other than the perpetually injured Sacha Jones & one promising young girl named Katherine Westbury, erakovic is pretty much all NZ tennis has got!

[Mahaloth]

Um... Kim didn't make it.


What?

:confused:

[maplekiwi]

Tis true - foot injury.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/sports/tennis/wimbledon-foot-injury-sidelines-kim-clijsters.html

[PunditLisa]

Sadly, I do not.

Bummer. My cable provider bundles it in a Sports package for $2.95/month. Best $3 I've ever spent. We have TTC on most nights. They offer extended coverage of all the major ATP events and complementary coverage of the Grand Slams. The recap last night didn't show the matches in their entirety, of course, but rather a 30 or 40 minute sample of each match.

I really wish I'd have remembered to set my DVR yesterday. I'd have loved to have seen the Bartoli/Williams match. I love Bartoli because she's so unconventional.

[Alka Seltzer]

Latest on the Nadal injury is that it isn't too serious. A scan has shown nothing, and he says it was actually improving during the Del Potro match.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/13937280.stm

[Cumbrian]

Women's quarter final day and the weather has broken here in London (it's just been throwing hailstones down outside my office in West London), so everything will be happening on Centre Court for the time being.

Bartoli is a break down against Lisicki.

It's bloody typical that we have a good spell of weather that includes the middle Sunday at Wimbledon - an entire day of decent weather lost to tennis for archane reasons. I understand this may well be "the charm of Wimbledon" for some but they should just get themselves together and start playing on the middle Sunday - especially in years like this, where the weather forecast was threatening this as early as the middle of last week.

[Marley23]

Lisicki wins the first set. I'd heard she had a very powerful serve, and right now she's serving much better and harder than Bartoli and just outhitting her. And I agree that they should at least start scheduling tennis on the middle Sunday if the forecast shows there will be a lot of reain the following week.

[Evil Captor]

Bummer. My cable provider bundles it in a Sports package for $2.95/month. Best $3 I've ever spent. We have TTC on most nights. They offer extended coverage of all the major ATP events and complementary coverage of the Grand Slams. The recap last night didn't show the matches in their entirety, of course, but rather a 30 or 40 minute sample of each match.

I really wish I'd have remembered to set my DVR yesterday. I'd have loved to have seen the Bartoli/Williams match. I love Bartoli because she's so unconventional.

My DVD recorder is set on "stun" today. Now I can watch all the junk they'll put on if it rains! Which may be some of yesterday's matches!

[Marley23]

Bartoli has saved three match points so far in this game. Lisicki just hit an amazing lob to set up the second match one, but Bartoli fought back to win best point of the match that I've seen. Lisicki just doubled-faulted to give the braek to Bartoli, so it's now 5-5 in the second set.

[abbeytxs]

Looks like Bartoli is finally waking up! Although Lisicki has certainly played a smart match. I think it is anyone's match at this point.

[Cumbrian]

Bartoli comes through in the second set tie break and has levelled this up.. It's not half bad this match. Bartoli is pretty gritty and Lisicki has played some pretty decent shots.

[Cumbrian]

After saying that Bartoli has capitulated in the final set. Maybe getting back into the match via the tie break has just taken it out of her - she's made a few errors in this final set.

Lisicki goes through 6-4, 6-7, 6-1

[abbeytxs]

I hope Lisicki employs the drop shot that worked so well today against Maria. Maria is not known for being an exceptional mover on the court, I think the droppers will frustrate the heck out of her!

[notfrommensa]

Bartoli was absolutely gassed in the third set. She sat down on a linesman chair between service games when it was NOT a changeover. Lisicki could almost win a point at will with a drop shot because Bartoli was playing too far behind the baseline and she simply did not have enough speed to get to a drop shot. Bartoli might have been emotionally spent after beating Serena (and playing so well).

[Marley23]

I think it was just physical exhaustion for Bartoli. At one point in the third set, they showed she had logged around 50 percent more court time during the tournament than Lisicki - something like 10:20 to 7:20, which means Bartoli spent around 50 percent more time playing. Lisicki got tight late in the second set, but she served well, had a lot of power, and mixed in that slice drop shot nicely. That's a big win for her. Against Sharapova she would need to continue to serve well, keep her moving, return aggressively and maybe hope for a few extra double faults.

[Cumbrian]

Sharapova is playing very, very well - in this form, she will be tough to stop. She's utterly dominated Cibulkova, winning 6-1, 6-1 in a little over an hour.

It will take a big effort to knock her out - she looked like she was moving around the court OK to me - though Cibulkova didn't bring her to the net loads, it has to be said.

[Mahaloth]

Bernard Tomic won the 2nd set and is up a break in the 3rd set. Could he beat Djoker?

By the way, how is his name pronounced? Bernard like Benard on LOST or Bernard like Bernard Hill(the British way I mean)?

[Marley23]

Don't look now, but Tomic is giving Djokovic a run for his money. Djokovic won the first set easily and Tomic took the second, and he's now leading 2-0 in the third.

[Mahaloth]

The Bryan brothers just won their match in the fifth set, 16-14. Came back two sets down to win three straight.

[Mahaloth]

Federer is 178-0 when up 2 sets to none. It says "at majors", anyway. Do they play best 3 of 5 anywhere else, and has Fed. ever lost when up 2-0 at those?

[Alka Seltzer]

Tomic has just disintegrated. He was a break up in the 3rd set, before he handed it back with 4 unforced errors. He's now lost 5 games in a row and with it the 3rd set. Oh well, he is only 18.

[Tom Scud]

Federer is 178-0 when up 2 sets to none. It says "at majors", anyway. Do they play best 3 of 5 anywhere else, and has Fed. ever lost when up 2-0 at those?

Davis Cup? The year-end thing?

[Marley23]

Federer is 178-0 when up 2 sets to none. It says "at majors", anyway. Do they play best 3 of 5 anywhere else, and has Fed. ever lost when up 2-0 at those?
There are a few other major events where they play best of five. At the 2005 year end championship in Shanghai, Nalbandian came back to beat Federer 6-7, 6-7, 6-2, 6-1, 7-6.

[Tom Scud]

Also, 2003 Davis Cup semis, Hewitt beat him 5-7 2-6 7-6 7-5 6-1.

[Marley23]

Tsonga has really caught fire here. He's up 5-3 in the fourth.

[eenerms]

Some great men's quarters so far!

[Cumbrian]

Tsonga is a break up in the 5th and looks like he could knock Federer out here. The power game has worked really well for him. Federer actually doesn't look like he is hitting his topspin forehand out of the middle of the raquet anymore - as he is having to chase the ball to get it back and can't get into position to get a good shot off. Tsonga will deserve this win if it comes his way.

It's 5-3 in the final set, Federer to serve.

[Mahaloth]

I swear when I wrote that 178-0 thing about Fed, he was up 2-0. I had no idea Tsonga was going to come back like this.

Amazing.

[Mahaloth]

And that's it.

Tsonga becomes the first guy to come back in a major from 2 sets down against Fed.

[Evil Captor]

Not a good Wimbledon for the heads that wear the crowns!

[Marley23]

I swear when I wrote that 178-0 thing about Fed, he was up 2-0. I had no idea Tsonga was going to come back like this.
Neither did ESPN. ;) Tsonga just closed out an amazing comeback. It didn't feel to me like Federer's level of play declined that much. Tsonga just did an incredibly job of stepping up. His serve was huge and the Triple match point for Tsonga right now. He's been serving very well and the forehand was amazing. I thought Federer won the first set pretty easily, but he didn't even get to break point in the last four sets.

Tomic staged a nice rally in the fourth set to get to 5-5, but Djokovic got another break to escape with the match. Nadal is already up a break to start the match against Fish and I don't expect that one to be very competitive.

[Mahaloth]

Neither did ESPN. ;) Tsonga just closed out an amazing comeback.

Was it on ESPN where you live? It was on NBC here.

[Marley23]

ESPN2 had the match through the end while NBC carried the end of Djokovic-Tomic. From what I've seen, during the week ESPN2 shows the matches until maybe 10 a.m. Eastern and then NBC takes over.

[Lantern]

Didn't watch the game but read the news a few minutes back. Poor Fed. You have to wonder if he will ever win another slam again.

[Mahaloth]

Fish just won the 3rd set from Nadal.

[Marley23]

If Fish comes back to win, then I give up. ;) Meanwhile Murray is up two sets to love on Lopez.

[maplekiwi]

I wish I'd seen the Fed match.

& Erakovic won her doubles. She & her partner are through to the semis - her best ever Grand Slam result!

She was always a better doubles than singles player. From memory she won 1 junior Grand Slam title & was runner up in two. Unfortunately her next opponent will be either Petrova & her partner or my tournament picks Lisicki/Stosur

Edit; & Tomic getting a set off Novak at only 18 - well, thats doing well! As someone who gets the Australian coverage of the Aussie Open I'm glad they are getting a decent male player. The first round of the Aussie Open is painful watching the bunnies with wild cards get flattened. Wimbledon used to be pretty bad too.

[PunditLisa]

I watched the 45 minute highlights of each of the matches on Wimbledon PrimeTime. Really wished I would have been able to see the entire Federer match, but who has 4-5 hours to commit to watching tennis on a weekday?

Anyway, it looked like a fantastic match. It was funny because when I turned it on, they were in the middle of playing. And I thought, "Why is Mohammed Ali playing tennis?" I know he's gotten that before, but the resemblance is striking. Though Ali was more handsome, IMO. Or should I say he was prettier? :)

Didn't get to see Tomic when he was on fire. They started the match when Djokovic was up 2-1 already. So basically I got to see him break Djokovic and the collapse. I mean, he didn't even try to put out a racquet, which is always painful to watch. You're in the semis at Wimbledon, dude, at least GUESS a side a la Agassi. If you're wrong, you're no worse off. But letting a guy shoot 3 aces in one game without moving from your spot is just empowering him. Anyway, good run for the Aussie, and I was especially thankful because Pat Rafter was there watching and I love me some Rafter even though he's put on 25 or 30 pounds.

Lopez's match was painful to watch. Shame because he played great leading up to this. Murray has game and I can't wait for him to put it all together and finally win a major. His game is best suited to grass of all the players remaining, IMO, so I'm rooting for him to win his first major. Plus, it'll get the monkey off the back of all the Brits who are pining for a Big Win. Lopez had moments of greatness but not many. I do think it's hysterical that Andy Murray's mom has a Twitter crush on him and calls him Delicioso Lopez. (Though, honestly, I think Feliciano plays for the other team, so she'd be out of luck even if he liked older women.)

I fell asleep in the middle of the Nadal match, but I'm assuming Nadal won. Fish is having a fantastic run but he's outclassed by the men remaining.

It should be a great semi-final. If Tsonga is on and getting that first serve hammer in, he's going to be tough to beat. Murray is hungry for a win, especially at home. Nadal will fight until they drag his twitching body off the court. And Djokovic's biggest threat, Federer, has been taken down.

Good stuff.

[Cumbrian]

Kvitove through 6-1 3-6 6-2

Sharapova has lost her first service game and is currently 3-0 down in the 1st against Lisicki

[notfrommensa]

ESPN2 is showing a repeat of he Fed/Tsonga match. and NBC doesn't come on until 11 am CT here in the midwest. So I guess I will have to watch the Sharapova match on tape delay. :mad:

[Cumbrian]

Sharapova has come back in the 1st set and is now serving for it. She's not lost a set all champinoship and only been taken to a tie break once and after an early wobble, she looks like she is righting the ship here. Obviously, Lisicki or Kvitova could do a Tsonga and really bring their A game but it's very hard to see Sharapova coming away from Wimbledon without the championship at the minute.

[Evil Captor]

I wonder what kind of drugs Nadal is hopped up on right now? Not saying he's taking illegal drugs mind you, just that his docs probably have him hopped up on something or other for that injury.

[Mahaloth]

ESPN2 is showing a repeat of he Fed/Tsonga match. and NBC doesn't come on until 11 am CT here in the midwest. So I guess I will have to watch the Sharapova match on tape delay. :mad:

East coast had it delayed too.

They better show the men's live tomorrow.

[PunditLisa]

I wonder what kind of drugs Nadal is hopped up on right now? Not saying he's taking illegal drugs mind you, just that his docs probably have him hopped up on something or other for that injury.

One of the commentators asked him yesterday or the day before if he was on pain medications. He laughed and said that he's ALWAYS on pain medications.

I play tennis at about 1/10 the intensity of Nadal. And I pop Ibuprofen like they're candy. Otherwise it takes ten minutes to convince my knees to straighten enough so that I can stand upright.

[Evil Captor]

So I've got Wimbledon on and Mrs. Evil Captor comes in and she's laughing her ass off at the improbable sounds being made by one of the contestants in Azatoth vs. Shub-Niggurath (or maybe it was Azerenka vs. Kvitova, all those Cthulhu Mythos names are confusing) and suddenly she says, "I know that sound! It's a turkey call! She's calling turkeys!"

So now YOU know!

[PunditLisa]

Well, I wish she'd finally get her Tom so that the rest of us can watch in peace!

(Did you see the ladies in the stands at the Sharapova match wearing their "Ladies, Please No Grunting" t-shirts? Personally, I think they should say, "Ladies, Quit the F-ing Shrieking!" but I suppose they have to be more civilized at Wimbledon.

[Evil Captor]

Well, I wish she'd finally get her Tom so that the rest of us can watch in peace!

(Did you see the ladies in the stands at the Sharapova match wearing their "Ladies, Please No Grunting" t-shirts? Personally, I think they should say, "Ladies, Quit the F-ing Shrieking!" but I suppose they have to be more civilized at Wimbledon.

I did see those shirts! And although Azatoth may or may not have gotten her Tom, she lost the match, so no more of her. Not that Sharapova is a treat to listen to when she plays.

[Tamerlane]

Not that Sharapova is a treat to listen to when she plays.

She's better though. To me. It might be a tad louder according to the decibel counters, but it least it doesn't have that trailing hoot Azarenka adds to hers. Sharapova's shrieks I can tolerate with poor grace, but Azarenka's weird hooting is so bizarre and long that I find her matches borderline unwatchable. I'm glad she lost because a potential Sharapova + Azarenka match would have been horrific.

Still neither is bad as that one freakish orgasmic shriek from a lower-ranked player that somebody linked to here once. Can't remember the name, but it was so insanely, comically awful you literally expected it to usher in the rise of the Old Ones.

[Marley23]

Michelle Larcher de Brito. She's still only 18, but I'm not sorry that her career hasn't taken off.

[Boo Boo Foo]

She's better though. To me. It might be a tad louder according to the decibel counters, but it least it doesn't have that trailing hoot Azarenka adds to hers. Sharapova's shrieks I can tolerate with poor grace, but Azarenka's weird hooting is so bizarre and long that I find her matches borderline unwatchable. I'm glad she lost because a potential Sharapova + Azarenka match would have been horrific.

Still neither is bad as that one freakish orgasmic shriek from a lower-ranked player that somebody linked to here once. Can't remember the name, but it was so insanely, comically awful you literally expected it to usher in the rise of the Old Ones.I'd agree with all that. I personally find the vocal sounds in tennis so laughable that I just keep channel surfing. Especially from the women. It sounds like a porn film audio track gone all wrong. Other's will have opinions which vary of course, and that's cool.

[Cicero]

I agree with you Boo Foo Foo. I hardly watch tennis much these days but I did catch part of a Sharapova match the other night. It surprises me that none of her opponents have smacked her in the gob for those grunts.

[Novelty Bobble]

The grunting makes the ladies game even more unwatchable. I'm not a fan.
I love watching the men's game but if the women's final was being played in my garden I wouldn't open the curtains. (but I would have to shut the fucking windows to block out the horrendous noise.....and they'd better steer clear of my rhubarb patch!).
The men are far more skillfull, powerful and inventive. The women are so far below in overall ability as to be laughable. It is a different game, less entertaining and on court for less time and yet they get the same money for winning as the men do. They don't earn it in my opinion.

Roll on the Mens semi's. Would like to see Murray do it but to be honest you can flip a coin between him, Djokovic and Nadal. Each would be worthy.
I do like Tsonga though, I just reckon he is a slight level down from those three on his day and even then he has to find another three sets like he did against Federer and I'm not sure he can do that. A great story if he can though.

[AK84]

Gonna be Nadal, for it not to be, either Murray or Djokovic have toplay out of their skins and he has to be less then 100%.

Incidentally anyone think that grass courts at Wimbledon have changed? I do not think Nadal's style of play could have been successful in the kind of courts that existed in the Samapras or Becker eras.

[Novelty Bobble]

Gonna be Nadal, for it not to be, either Murray or Djokovic have toplay out of their skins and he has to be less then 100%.

Incidentally anyone think that grass courts at Wimbledon have changed? I do not think Nadal's style of play could have been successful in the kind of courts that existed in the Samapras or Becker eras.

Yes and I think the balls are slower as well. The differences now between the different surfaces are less marked than they used to be.
No bad thing either. The quality we see on regular basis is far higher than in the past.
Any of the current top 4, dropped into any other tennis era, would be a multi-grand slam winner. (though earlier grass would be the alien surface for most of them, Federer might the one would could adapt to pure serve-volleying the best)

I don't think Becker or Sampras would do nearly so well were they active now.

[Marley23]

Incidentally anyone think that grass courts at Wimbledon have changed?
They do play slower than they used to, and I think Novelty Bobble is right about the ball. There's some more homogeneity between the surfaces these days.

[Cumbrian]

They changed the grass at Wimbledon a few years ago - from a blend to 100% ryegrass. Apparently this is harder wearing and slower and has allowed baseliners to have greater success than your classic serve volleyer.

Info is on Wiki - Wiki, for once, is not wrong - they did a thing on the grass on the BBC during a rain delay a few years ago (back when we had rain delays - unbelievably, I've seen an article in the press here complaining that the advent of the roof means we no longer get to watch classic Wimbledon matches from yesteryear during rainy periods!)

[notfrommensa]

Lots of golf's royalty at Wimbledon this year. newly crowned US Open champ Rory McIlroy has been in the royal box, along with Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, Gary Player, and Ernie Els. I am a little surprised that Norman was there this week considering his ex (Chris Evert) is doing commentary this week.

Djokovic just won set number 1 in a tiebreaker.

[Mahaloth]

Gonna be Nadal, for it not to be, either Murray or Djokovic have toplay out of their skins and he has to be less then 100%.

Incidentally anyone think that grass courts at Wimbledon have changed? I do not think Nadal's style of play could have been successful in the kind of courts that existed in the Samapras or Becker eras.

In 2001, Wimbledon tore out all its courts and planted a new variety of groundcover. The new grass was 100% perennial rye; the old courts had been a mix of 70% rye and 30% creeping red fescue. The new lawn was more durable, and allowed Wimbledon's groundsmen to keep the soil underneath drier and firmer. A firmer surface causes the ball to bounce higher. A high bounce is anathema to the serve-and-volley player, who relies on approach shots skidding low through the court. What's more, rye, unlike fescue, grows in tufts that stand straight up; these tufts slow a tennis ball down as it lands.

From here. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html)

The Rafter-Goran final on a Monday was the last time the grass was the old grass.

[Marley23]

Djkovic cruised in set two. Tsonga seemed dispirited. In the first set Tsonga held the early lead and I thought he might just blast his way through like he did against Federer, but Djokovic slowed him down and broke as Tsonga was serving for the set.

[Marley23]

And that's one of the most amazing points I've ever seen. Both guys made diving volleys, first Tsonga, the Djokovic. Tsonga nearly made a second one, and it just went long. One point later, it's triple break point for Djokovic, so this is pretty much the match on the line here. EDIT: And the gets the break on his first try.

[notfrommensa]

Thanks for that article Marley. I have always thought it was counter-intuitive that grass was a faster court than hard court. Reasoning, blades of grass has more surface area than hard court. and more surface area, means more friction.

Djoker won set 2 easily and up a break in the 3rd set. Looks like Novak will be the new number 1, even he loses to Rafa on Sunday morning. Tennis rankings are seriously flawed if a player can lose the top ranking even if he wins the current tournament.

[Marley23]

Holy crap, another ridiculous point where both guys hit the turf. 4-3, Djokovic.

Thanks for that article Marley.
That was Mahaloth.

Tennis rankings are seriously flawed if a player can lose the top ranking even if he wins the current tournament.
If you want a system where you can't lose the #1 ranking unless you lose, you want college football or basketball - sports governed by insular and frequently illogical polls that are based mostly on people's impressions and not so much on hard data. The ATP rankings aren't based on one tournament, they're based on results from the last year. Why is it unreasonable for Djokovic to overtake Nadal in a 52-week ranking system if he's been the best player in the world at least for all of 2011? I don't mean to be confrontational about it, but Djokovic made the U.S. Open final last year (and lost to Nadal), won the Australian (Nadal lost in the quarters), lost in the semis in Paris (Nadal won), and it looks like he'll be in the finals at Wimbledon. Along the way he won 44 matches in a row, including some big tournaments - and beat Nadal four times. From where I sit it's not unreasonable to rank him in front of Nadal.

And now Tsonga earns a break, so it's 4-4! I think Djokovic knows how dangerous it is to give this guy a second chance.

[notfrommensa]

Then Novak should have already been #1. A Player should not become #1 from losing to the currently ranked #1 player.

IMO, Tennis rankings need to adopt some sort of spoilage (attrition) system where most recent results count more than results from 9 months ago. If Rafa wins, he gains no points in the rankings because last year results are still currently worth 100% of what they were worth 51 weeks ago. However if 2010 Wimbledon points are worth 50% of original value then Rafa is not defending the entire 1200 points, just 600 of them. He would have some upward mobility.

[notfrommensa]

This match has been extremely entertaining. Lots of grass stains on knees and shirts. Tiebreaker in the 3rd set.

[Marley23]

Match point to Djokovic at 6-5 in the third-set tiebreak, but they're on serve. Djokovic has dropped serve twice while trying to close out the match.

[Marley23]

Then Novak should have already been #1. A Player should not become #1 from losing to the currently ranked #1 player.
He's not becoming #1 from losing to the current #1. This is what I was complaining about before- your idea about giving more weight to recent events has merit, but saying 'he's becoming #1 from losing to the current #1' puts too much emphasis on the latest result. These are full-year rankings and they're supposed to tell you who has been the best over an extended period of time. Overriding that because it feels wrong that he could overtake Nadal even if he loses to Nadal is not logical.

Djokovic will not become #1 "from losing" to Nadal. It's true that he would be #1 even if he loses to Nadal, but we don't know that Nadal will make the final or that he will beat Djokovic if he makes it. The reason Djokovic is on the verge of becoming the top player is that he won 40-odd matches in a row to start this year. He has already won seven titles this season. One of them was the Australian Open, and four others were Masters events, which are the biggest ones after the Slams and the year-end tournament. Nadal has three titles this year. He won the French, he won one Masters event, and one smaller tournament. He lost to Djokovic in the finals of four other Masters events. Djokovic has been the best player, by a lot, in 2011. He was the second best player in 2010. It's now the middle of 2011, so it's not like this is crazy.

[Marley23]

And the tiebreak goes to Tsonga 11-9. ESPN says that since 2006, all but two of the men's semis have been over in straight sets. I guess that mostly just says Federer and Nadal are really good on grass.

Djokovic broke to start the set and is serving for a 3-0 lead. If Djokovic does pull himself together and win this thing, he will be the first player other than Federer or Nadal to reach #1 since Feb. 1, 2004 - the last day Andy Roddick was on top. That's seven years and five months with only two guys sharing the #1 ranking; 285 weeks for Federer and 103 for Nadal. It's completely nuts. In the old days, a typical stay at the top might be a couple of months, and a few weeks was not unheard of.

[notfrommensa]

I realize novak basically will have got his #1 ranking from his earlier play. That is why I am saying that Novak should have already been the top ranked player. The math is just now catching up and the ranking is a trailing indicator. to get the rankings more current it should have more weight on the most recent results. Golf rankings have their issues, but I do like that most recent results count more. The fact that Rafa has all his rankings points at risk from last year is ridiculous. Those point should be have been losing some significance. He has everything to lose and nothing to gain in the rankings.

and looking at from the other side, if Rafa does win, he will have 3 of the 4 biggest trophies in the game and not be #1 and QF in the 4th major. In golf, if a player had three of the 4 majors and wasn't ranked number 1, there would be massive outrage.

[Mahaloth]

Djokovic will be the #1 player in the world after this tournament. Amazing.

[Marley23]

Djokovic finally serves it out on his third try, and takes the fourth set 6-3.

I realize novak basically will have got his #1 ranking from his earlier play. That is why I am saying that Novak should have already been the top ranked player. The math is just now catching up and the ranking is a trailing indicator. to get the rankings more current it should have more weight on the most recent results.
If that were the case, Djokovic would already be number one. So from that standpoint it's kind of academic, and the fact that he might get the top ranking while losing to Nadal is sort of a coincidence. The thing that influences the rankings is how much you improve (or go down, or stay the same) from year to year. Djokovic has gone up a lot, and Nadal has gone down a little.

The fact that Rafa has all his rankings points at risk from last year is ridiculous. Those point should be have been losing some significance. He has everything to lose and nothing to gain in the rankings.
That's not true. You don't risk your points. The points expire no matter what you do; the questions is what you replace them with. Djokovic has improved his results at all four majors over the last year (he did several rounds better in Australia) and won a bunch of other significant events. Nadal has not improved his results, partly because at the ones he won, he could not improve. You can't go up from #1 - although of course you can put distance between yourself and your competitors. At the end of 2010, Nadal had essentially the same number of points he has right now, and Djokovic had almost exactly half as many points as Nadal. Now Djokovic is a little bit ahead.

and looking at from the other side, if Rafa does win, he will have 3 of the 4 biggest trophies in the game and not be #1 and QF in the 4th major.
And Djokovic would have one win, two finals and a semifinal. There are more than four tournaments in the season, and Djokovic has beaten Nadal the last four times they've played. It's not a fluke that he's #1.

[notfrommensa]

The points "expire" all at once and IMO, that is a problem. I think they should start to slowly expire (10% per month after 6 free months?) and the balance on the 13th month. It wouldn't be that big of change.

the Fringe Tennis fan is not going to analyze the rankings, all they are going to see a #1 Nadal winning Wimbledon and losing the #1 spot in the rankings (if Rafa indeed goes onto win). And unless you dig deep, that is not going to make any sense to the casual fan.

Anything is possible, but I could never dream up a realistic scenario where the #1 golfer wins one of the four major championship and loses the #1 ranking.

[Marley23]

the Fringe Tennis fan is not going to analyze the rankings, all they are going to see a #1 Nadal winning Wimbledon and losing the #1 spot in the rankings (if Rafa indeed goes onto win). And unless you dig deep, that is not going to make any sense to the casual fan.
I don't think they're going to care - and if they do, reminding them that Djokovic has lost two matches all year (presuming he loses to Nadal in the final) would probably do the trick. People complain about the women's rankings because every time the top player loses, the press throws up its hands and starts another story about how Ms. #1 hasn't earned her ranking.

[notfrommensa]

IMO, the casual fan does care about the rankings, much more so than the hard core fan. The casual fan cares about 4 tournaments, and who is the best players in the rankings. They don't care who won the Qatar Invitational.

If it is Novak vs Rafa on Sunday morning, the announcers will say countless times that Novak will overtake Rafa in the rankings, even if he loses. It is not going to make sense to them. My parents, professors, and bosses always told me that perception is very important, and this doesn't pass the smell test IMO.

[notfrommensa]

the Novak/Tsonga match was very entertaining. Novak played very well. Congratz to him and his new number 1 ranking. Accrued more points in 18 tournaments than Nadal has done in 22 events. He is a very deserving #1 ranked player. I hope he goes on to win on Sunday no matter who he plays.

[Marley23]

Then they're ignorant. Of course they won't know why he's passing Nadal if they don't know what happens for most of the season. What are we supposed to do about that, and how much do we need to accomodate a fan who watches the sport maybe eight weeks a year and has a complaint about the 52-week rankings? Djokovic didn't get to the top by winning "the Qatar Open," although he did win one in Dubai. He won the Australian and he's been winning other big tournaments like Miami and Indian Wells and Rome.

Nadal is now serving to send the first set to a tiebreak. And Murray breaks to win the set!

[Marley23]

Nadal just won a point with a volley at an incredible angle. He won the second set 6-2, and it looked like Murray strained something in his leg or his hip a few games ago. It would make sense for him to get some treatment here if he's that uncomfortable.

[Mahaloth]

Murray looks like he is falling apart.

[Marley23]

Yeah, this is bad news. Beating Nadal is hard enough; doing it when you're injured is a huge undertaking. I'm surprised he didn't call the trainer to take a look at his hip before he went out to serve again. He's already fought off two break points and now he just missed a forehand to give Nadal a third. And there's the break for Nadal.

[Evil Captor]

Nadal's injury does not seem to be bothering him at all, he is all over that court.

[Mauvaise]

Murray looks like he is falling apart.

I really want to root for Murray, but he does this crap Slam after Slam, whether in the Semi or if he makes it the Final. He faces a little pressure* and he just gives up the offense (if he ever starts) and goes pure defense. Defense will not win you a GS title (Wozniacki, I'm looking at you here too).

That and Murray's defeatist attitude once he lost the 2nd set - Dude! It's one set - all it did was just tie it up, but you already have yourself back in the locker room giving your post-match rationalization of why you lost.



*Yes, I realize that Nadal has like a 13th gear that he can turn on when he's got his back against the wall, but that's no reason for Murray to just give up.

[PunditLisa]

Nadal was en fuego. He had that look of pure determination on his face and I thought, "Whoa, boy." He made Murray look like a school kid.

Didn't see any of the Djokovic match yet thanks to work, but I heard it was fabulous. Crossing my fingers that it'll be a fantastic 5-setter.

Go Nole! Go Rafa!

Oh, and Go, Kvitova (or however you spell it)!

[Evil Captor]

Man, I am doing blackberrries and whipped cream for Wimbledon. Taaasty! Looks like some interesting matchups in the finals, to say the least.

[eenerms]

Think I'll take a pass on The Ladies final. Sharapova drives me nuts with her games(wo)menship.

Nadal Djokovic should be a good match. I think that it will be whomever wins the tiebreaks, wins the prize.

(Murray, dude grow up!)

[Marley23]

Kvitova looks great so far. She won the first set 6-3 and is up a break at 2-1 in the second. I'm seeing very few nerves from her and all she needs to do now is hold serve a few times.

I still don't know what happened to Murray yesterday. I thought the hip was bothering him for a while, but after the first few games he was moving fine. He just seemed demoralized even before he'd lost the second set. I don't get it at all.

[notfrommensa]

Kvitova won set 1 relatively easily, and is up a break in the second set.

edited, Sharapova just shrieked her way to her very own break. all square in 2nd set at 2-2.

[Cicero]

Murray did the same in the Australian Open though didn't he? I think a problem may be between his ears.

[Marley23]

After a long series of breaks, Kvitova finally holds serve. Looks like she'll be serving for the match at 5-4.

Murray did the same in the Australian Open though didn't he? I think a problem may be between his ears.
He's made three major finals and lost all three in straight sets, which does indicate a mental problem. But I thought that was different. In all three of those matches, he started off tight and didn't play his own game - or didn't start doing it until he was far behind. This time he was ahead and just seemed to lose it when it looked like Nadal was going to tie the match. I'm having trouble understanding it.

[Marley23]

And she's done it! Kvitova holds at love and serves an ace on match point to win the title! She was really terrific today.

[notfrommensa]

Some sloppy tennis in the 2nd set from both players, but Kvitova made enough good shots to win the Championship. Congratz to Petra Kvitova, 2011 Wimbledon Ladies Champion.

[Cicero]

I'm glad that Kvitova won. I do have some difficulty with that grunting of Sharapovas. She is easy on the eye though.

Question for you folks who have far more knowledge and have seen a lot more tennis than I have.

Federer- is he now finished? It seems only 12 months ago we were discussing whether he was the best of all time, and (I believe it was Marley) mentioned that it was difficult to say as he may not even be the best of the present time.

It certainly seems that he has lost his aura.

[Marley23]

It's hard to say a guy is finished when he's #3 in the world. He's not the best player right now, but he's my pick for best ever. He could still compete for major titles and if you can make a final, I think you can win. And I do think he's playing well now. But it's true that he hasn't won one since the 2010 Australian.

[Novelty Bobble]

It's hard to say a guy is finished when he's #3 in the world. He's not the best player right now, but he's my pick for best ever. He could still compete for major titles and if you can make a final, I think you can win. And I do think he's playing well now. But it's true that he hasn't won one since the 2010 Australian.

My sentiments exactly.

Even if Nadal wins tomorrow he wlll need another 6 slams to get more than Federer. That equates to another 2 or 3 years at current ability and intensity and to be honest I think he is likely to encounter a wider spread of opposition than previously.

Anyhow,who cares? Both Nadal and Federer will end their careers being recognised as potentially the best ever. Nadal is certainly the most brutal power hitter I've ever seen, and Federer without doubt the most beautiful striker of a tennis ball I've ever seen.

Happy times indeed.

[notfrommensa]

Federer is my pick for best ever. IMO, The only reason why his record against Nadal is poor is because he was so good on clay, and Nadal was nearly unbeatable. But until recently, Nadal always lost before he played Fed at Grass, Hard Courts and Carpet. If Nadal had been better on those surfaces (earlier in his career), I am sure that Federer's record against Nadal would have been better.

[AK84]

Nadal is better as far as the record is concerned. Nadal has won two Wimbledon when Federar was playing and could well add a third. Fed's only French Open came after Nadal was injured.

Its telling. When Nadal reached the Wimbledon Final in 2006, it was clearly due to good form and good luck and Federar was the winner easily. In 2007, I remember thinking that Nasal had improved much and Fed was still at the same level and that Nadal was the better player. Fed even said so in his speech afterwards.

Nadal has improved beyond all recognition. Fed has not gotten better after 2005-2006, though to be fair its hard to get any better,

[Marley23]

If the worst you can say about Federer is that he didn't get any better than when he was at his best (he lost a grand total of 9 matches in 2005 and 2006), I don't think that's much of a criticism. Those are two of the best seasons anyone ever had, and he won three more majors in '07. He's five years older than Nadal, so you'd expect him to go downhill before Nadal.

[Mahaloth]

Federer is the best of all-time, unless Nadal catches up in total majors.

Federer is declining, but the talent is also increasing that is against him. He will still win one more major, especially if Djokovic and Nadal get knocked out before he faces them.

[Implicit]

I've been reading along with this thread since I don't have a TV. Thank you everyone for posting snippets about the various matches, it kept me up to speed and added colour to the results that I've been tracking online.

[Marley23]

I'm sure a lot of people saw this already, but the Bryans won the men's doubles today. It's their second Wimbledon ('06) and their 11th major championship overall, which ties the record for the most ever by a men's doubles team. They have 73 titles together, which is a record. Peschke and Srebotnik won the women's doubles. They teamed up last year and it's the first major championship for both of them. The runners-up were Stosur and Lisicki. I always like it when a player does well in singles and doubles at the same major.

Nadal vs. Djokovic is supposed to start around 9 a.m. Eastern. It should be very interesting. Nadal has owned Djokovic in majors to this point, but Djokovic has won all their matches this year and he's been so good lately that you wonder if that history really counts.

[notfrommensa]

I didn't see Novak win set #1 (6-4) but am watching set #2 and Novak is playing some incredible tennis as he is up a break. He is moving very well, and some entertaining points..

[Marley23]

Djokovic is just kicking ass right now. He's now up 5-1 and serving for the second set.

[Mahaloth]

Nadal takes the third set. 1927, last time a comeback in the final from 2 sets down.

[Marley23]

Djokovic isn't playing like he did in the first two sets, but he seems to have found his range a little more. It's 4-3 in the fourth and he has 0-30 on Nadal's serve. And now 0-40! If he gets one of these three points he'll serve for the title.

[Mahaloth]

Djoker serving for the match!

[Kolak of Twilo]

Well, that's that.

[Mahaloth]

Djokovic wins!

[Marley23]

And he did it! Outstanding performance by Djokovic that puts his ranking beyond reproach. He's 48-1 with eight titles this year, he's beaten Nadal five times in a row, and he's won his first Wimbledon. It's great to see that since late last year he found this new level in his game. He went away for a while in the third set and was shaky at the beginning of the fourth, but it's a great performance and he absolutely got the job done. Fantastic effort.

[PSXer]

is it traditional to eat the Wimbledon grass in celebration? (that was what Djokovic was doing, right?)

[Marley23]

No, that was a new one as far as I know. Kissing the grass is not unusual, but I've never seen anybody take a bite. Nadal does take pretend bites of his trophies, though.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Usually players just fall down and then kneel for a bit. In 2001 (?), Ivanisevic kissed the ground, his chair, the umpire's chair, two ball boys and Sue Barker, but he'd earned it.

[Mahaloth]

Usually players just fall down and then kneel for a bit. In 2001 (?), Ivanisevic kissed the ground, his chair, the umpire's chair, two ball boys and Sue Barker, but he'd earned it.

You bet he earned it. My favorite final of all time, too.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Mine also. I nearly cried.

[Covered_In_Bees!]

I teared up a little when I saw Novak won. He's been third fiddle to Nadal and Federer so long and yet he's only gotten better and better because of it and now it truly is paying off. Number 1 ranking and another title to add to his collection. I'm very happy for him and hope to see this trend continue for a while and maybe he'll play dream crusher to some young upstarts for the next few years.

[PunditLisa]

Finally saw the championship, which I'd set to record prior to leaving for vacation in a place that is remote enough not to have t.v. access. So I'd remained blissfully unaware of the winner, by design, until my brother casually read off the winner while we were boating in the middle of a lake. He thought I'd like to know since he knows that I follow tennis. Argh! Damn smart phones.

Even knowing the results, it was a great match, with high caliber of play by both men. Loser was gracious and unbawling, winner was gracious and bawling -- just the way it should be. :) Nadal was his usual all-business self and Djokovic was his usual clownish self.

Lots of twists and turns in Wimbledon this year, all of it making for a more interesting championship. Well, except for those pesky rain delays and the lack of play on that middle Sunday when a lot of fans could watch.

I have the women's final taped, but I already know the winner of that match, too. Hey, vacation comes first.

[notfrommensa]

Now that Novak and Rafa have separated themselves from the pack in the ATP rankings. They have lapped Federer but and Fed has a big lead on Murray and Murray has big lead on "the rest", who is the the heir apparent to the world best player that is not named Novak, Rafa, or Roger? I am looking at the mens rankings and everyone at the top is age 24 or older, which is pretty close to being "long in the tooth" in tennis terms.

I guess what I am asking, what youngster is on the fast track to becoming the next #1 player?



# Age Points Player
1 24 13,285 Djokovic, Novak (SRB)
2 25 11,270 Nadal, Rafael (ESP)
3 29 9,230 Federer, Roger (SUI)
4 24 6,855 Murray, Andy (GBR)
5 26 4,325 Soderling, Robin (SWE)
6 29 4,150 Ferrer, David (ESP)
7 24 2,780 Monfils, Gael (FRA)
8 29 2,650 Fish, Mardy (USA)
9 25 2,470 Berdych, Tomas (CZE)
10 28 2,110 Roddick, Andy (USA)
11 25 2,105 Gasquet, Richard (FRA)
12 30 2,085 Melzer, Jurgen (AUT)
13 25 1,955 Almagro, Nicolas (ESP)
14 26 1,945 Tsonga, Jo-Wilfried (FRA)
15 26 1,935 Wawrinka, Stanislas (SUI)
16 25 1,930 Troicki, Viktor (SRB)

[Marley23]

The promising young guys I've seen are Bernard Tomic, Milos Raonic, Grigor Dmitrov, Alex Dolgopolov, and let's not forget that Del Potro is still only 22. He'll be 23 in September. These guys could start challenging Djokovic and Nadal (if his body stays together) and whoever else in the next couple of years. Marin Cilic is also just 22, but I think it's clear at this point that he's a headcase and is not going to turn in a lot of consistent results. We know what Del Potro has done in the past. He is now ranked #19 and figures to rise even further during the summer hard court season based on how he's torn it up in recent years. I am not sure he's all the way back from his injuries yet, but I think he'll get there and get back to the top. Tomic and Dolgopolov made the quarters in Australia, Raonic made the fourth round in Australia and unfortunately got injured at Wimbledon or he might've played Nadal in round three, and Dimitrov lost a very entertaining match to Tsonga in the second round. Dolgopolov is #25, Raonic is #26, and Dmitrov is #60.

[PunditLisa]

If Del Potro is on his game and healthy, he can take on anyone, including Nadal and Djokovic. He's tall, he's got a tremendous serve, and he has a well-rounded game. I can't wait for him to be a contender again.

[Mahaloth]

Oh, and that was the final "Breakfast at Wimbledon" for awhile. Looks like Wimbledon is leaving NBC to be aired entirely on ESPN.

43 years. :(

NBC losing Wimbledon (http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/news?slug=ap-wimbledon-tv)

[Marley23]

ESPN's deal will last for the next 12 years. It says it will air matches on ESPN and ESPN2 simulataneously during fourth round and the quarters, and everything they air will be live instead of the famous NBC tape delay. I'm more than happy to do without Breakfast at Wimbledon in exchange for that.

[PSXer]

but I don't have ESPN. alas