Getty
We said the women's field was wide open, and it was.
Or was it?
After all, the defending champion lost to this year's Australian Open runner up, neither of whom earned a spot in my original poll.
Why?
Getty
Because I felt there was no way Francesca Schiavone would come anywhere close to defending her title, what with her inability to make a final anywhere in the world since she won this thing, and because Li Na has been struggling since Melbourne.
Who would have thought Madame Li (Forty Deuce gets that credit) would make back-to-back Slam finals and make history (again) by claiming this one?
I didn't think so.
But at the end of the day, while her victory may have come as a surprise, the draw wasn't, ultimately, that wide open. We simply overlooked these finalists for the winners of the lead-up events and Kim Clijsters. Woe is us.
::
Getty
For all the talk (and talk and talk talk talk) of American ineptitude on clay, John Isner took two sets off the eventual champion. I'm going to say that again: John Isner took two tiebreak sets off the eventual champion. Even the great Roger Federer couldn't do that. And Bjorn Fratangelo (what a name), a young man from Pennsylvania, won the Boys' title.
Getty
Chew on that.
::
The Tennis Channel gave good coverage. ESPN? Not so much. NBC? It's all already been criticized, but if you treat tennis like a bad stepchild then you really ought not be a parent. Enough said.
::
It almost feels like Caroline Wozniacki never even played this Slam. She was drubbed what seems like a tournament ago. Some like to say I hate on her. I simply find her lacking credibility as the tour's top player specifically and as a sports phenomenon generally. After her drubbing, she called herself a "great player." I think she has herself confused with a few of her friends on the WTA.
::
Getty
Victoria Azarenka lost to the eventual champion (as did my pick Petra Kvitiva) so I won't be too hard on her this time. But she has now failed to advance past the quarterfinals of a Slam every time she's gotten there, and she's gotten there lots. Are we to start calling her Victoria Quarterenka?
::
Getty
Truth be told, I want to see a French player win Roland Garros before I die. I don't know when I'm going to die, but given how much the French fans seem to support they're own players, I have a sneaking suspicion I'm going to die unfulfilled. At least Marion Bartoli, who made the final four before falling to the defending champion, gave me hope. And what tennis.
::
Getty
I thought the men's final would have been better had Novak Djokovic found a way to deal with the pressure of playing for the No. 1 ranking in the semis. I know, I know. Conventional wisdom says Federer played a brilliant match to end The Streak. I didn't quite see it that way. He served superbly. That I concede. But winning a match behind a great first serve hasn't ever earned Andy Roddick a whole lot of kudos, so I'm not exactly sure why Federer got so many this go around. To my eyes, Djokovic simply couldn't handle it all. And that's okay. You'd think he would've received a little more crowd support (just a little bit) during his match if for nothing else bulletting tennis to the top of the sports headlines for such an incredible run.
Still, no need to wax poetic about Federer's game despite the knee-jerk reaction to do so. During today's final, a tennis player even tweeted that Nadal and Federer are simply head and shoulders above the rest of the field. Really? I shook my head. It's a cliche that doesn't hold water anymore. Not right now anyway. I'm not talking about overall achievements. I'm talking about recent play. Before today, Federer hadn't contested a Slam final in more than a year and only won a single title in 2011. Djokovic was denied a quarterfinal by a drama queen and while we'll never know if those 4 days off mattered much to his rhythm in the end, it probably gave him more time to think. Those are the breaks. But let's not so quickly forget what the world No. 2 achieved going back to Davis Cup last year. Just because the Great One finally defeated the Unbeatable One (after losing three times in a row to him this year) doesn't mean that the world No. 3 is currently anywhere above Djokovic by any 2011 measure, head or shoulder. A Nadal-Djokovic final would have been far more intriguing from first ball to last.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
See you on the lawns.
0 comments:
Post a Comment