The Eagle Has Landed

The last time Serena played Eastbourne (1998) she went out in the quarters to Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario. Twas a different era.

This time she’d “only” been out for 11 months. It still felt too long.

S. Williams d. Pironkova 1-6, 6-3, 6-4

It was scrappy, it was inelegant, it was ingenious, it was utterly terrifying.

But at the end of it she’d  won her first match in 11 months. And, just like her sister the day before, it took all of three sets.

She might just as easily have taken Tsvetana in straights or herself be taken down in much the same way. It was anyone’s guess. And most felt more comfortable not guessing at all.

In the end, neither, or something closer to both those eventualities, was what came to pass.

The lack of competitive matchplay was only too evident in a torrid first set that quickly saw her go 5-0 down.

But from the fifth game onwards (and notably after what seemed a conscious decision to take some pace off the ball) a transformation began to take place.

It wasn’t immediate, and at first its only observable effect was that she was staying longer in rallies and gingerly constructing the type of short angles that seemed born as much of compromise than anything else.

Whatever it was, it gave her the leverage she needed, as more and more winners began dropping on the right side of the lines, and by the end of it, the “best server in the game” seemed as fluid as ever.

It wasn’t “vintage Serena” (except only sporadically), but then neither was it the unsavoury fiasco some were fearful of.

In other words, she acquitted herself rather well – far better than any of us had the right to expect given the nature and length of her absence.  Bepa or Heather Watson await in round two.

Reluctant as I am to stultify the post with premature and sordid talk of how she may or may not fare at Wimbledon, her appetite for winning was only too evident. 

If you take only that, and nothing else, away from this match, it spells IMPOSSIBLY BAD NEWS for everyone else.

Factor in a sister that’s won more Wimbledon titles than any other active player and…

Eleventh Hour Wins.

 

With only one day to go, some folks are still hard at it.

 

 

AP

 

Great name for a tournie and a great cookie tray for winning it.

 

All well and good. Though I’ll be looking for a little more “boom-boom” from that serve we’ve been hearing so much of and a little less of forehand-horribilis. This result suggests match-fitness. And if she’s still stuttering she might just find herself getting smacked into shape by those other heavyweights in her quarter.

 

Smacked into shape rather than smacked straight out one hopes.

 

Now or Never.

 

 

AFP/Getty

 

This one needs a bulleted list.

• Unseeded qualifier
• Ranked #100 in the world
• Beats Flavlova, Nadia, Kuzzie, Stosur and, of course, Vika to win her first WTA title in Eastbourne
• Doesn’t drop a single set in doing it.

If that doesn’t put some colour in your cheeks I don’t know what will.

 

Round of applause please.

 

ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN. Said that already, no?

 

 

 

 AP

A real shame.

 

Vika’s run at Eastbourne this week included wins over Bartoli, Clijsters and ARad before seizing up with a leg injury in the final.

 

Only two days before the start of “The Championships”. Never fails to amaze me how full-of-oneself that sounds.

 

AFP

Amelie’s protege won the men’s event.

 

 Canadian Press

 

This lot went to Ascot. She’ll also be doing the rounds at “The Championships” this year. Lord, how droll that sounds.

Why that’s an outrage!

 

 

-- Roger Federer seeded #1 at Wimbledon.

 

Scandalous I know. Why anyone in their right mind would want to confer a #1 seeding on a guy that’s won 6 of the last 7 titles here and had a complete stranglehold on the #1 ranking during that time is beyond me.

 

Never underestimate the audacious logic espoused by Neanderthals in sufficiently high numbers.

 

By the amount of hot air this issue has generated you’d almost think that Fed had received a bye to the final.

 

For better or worse, Wimby has for many years now, chosen to distinguish itself through use of a seeding formula that rewards grass court prowess.

 

You can, indeed,  argue that seedings for a surface that exposes the utter uniformity of the majority of hard court players and the unique adaptive ability of a select few, should, in some way, reflect that distinction - a distinction I’d be prepared to extend to clay.

 

You can argue that Venus Williams ought to be seeded #1.

 

You can even argue that Nikolay Davydenko should be seeded outside of the top 50.

 

Of course you can choose to bin all of that, and argue, instead, that it’d be perfectly valid for Wimbledon to simply mirror the rankings the way the other Slams do.

 

And that’d be fine too.

 

Once you choose to go with the formula, however, continuing to argue in favour of your favourite player on the basis of a H2H begins to make you look petty, paltry and confused.

 

Verdict: There’s clutching at straws and there’s clutching at toothpicks. Not an outrage.

 

-- #342 ranked Brit, James Ward went out of the QFs of Eastbourne today

 

To reach that point he put out both Feli and Scheuttler. Back to back.

 

You’d think such an audacious feat on home turf would be enough to earn him a wildcard at Wimbledon.

 

The LTA’s top 250 cut off point (for affording WCs) and an illness at the end of last year that saw him drop out of that range (a position he’d previously held for 18 months) means you’d be wrong.

 

All of which has put us in the slightly laughable position of not having a single English player in the Wimbledon draw - a historical first, though hardly the kind of history to aspire for.

 

I understand the LTA are focused on “creating an environment where more British players aren't just in the first round because of a wild card, but on merit…”.

 

I also understand their position is a little “damned if you do damned if you don’t”.

 

How often, after all, have we seen them burnt at the stake for a spate of first round losses from “undeserving” Brits that were afforded WCs?

 

I don’t, however, understand the sheer lack of imagination that sees The-Powers-That-Be doggedly stick to “policy” and artificial cut off points at the expense of a fine BRITISH run of form.

 

What precise “metric” do you need to tell you that a Brit getting to, say, the third round of Wimbledon would represent a fine thing for British Tennis?

 

Verdict: Not simply an outrage. A scandal.

 

-- Thomas Muster. Comeback. 42. No really.

 

Verdict: Not an outrage. Simply outrageous. And yet I’m keen to see how this plays out.

 

-- SUI(24) d. ESP(2) 1-0

 

 

The equivalent of say Stan Wawrinka knocking out Rafael Nadal.

 

Verdict: Outrageous. On every imaginable level. And some unimaginable ones too. And yet I believe it would have played out rather differently on clay.