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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wimbledon: Parting Shots - The rest

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

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

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

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

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

» The Wimbledon Mic disaster

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

I’ve obviously missed something.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

Still not quite the same thing as “never”. 

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

»  I’m still not done blaming everyone and everything

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

» Marion

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

» Vika

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


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

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

» Sabine

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

» Jo-Wilfried

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

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

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

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

Wimbledon: Parting Shots (Petra edition)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

You’ll see where I’m going with this.

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you mean that’s not relevant?

Face Of The Day

Getty

A thousand words.

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

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




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

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

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

To do so would be disingenuous.

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Novak Djokovic, Wimbledon Champion

Getty


Getty

He played one set of spectacular tennis and captured his first Wimbledon crown. He wanted it so much, had struggled so to find his footing in the past, he ate a blade of grass when it was all over. I had sworn it would take a spectacular effort to defeat defending champion Rafael Nadal, that there was no way the Spaniard would let the Serbian off the hook at any time during the match.

I was wrong.

On either side of trading 6-1 sets, Nadal played two loose service games out of nowhere to drop serve. The first one handed Novak Djokovic the set outright, the second gave him the opportunity to serve for the match. I've seen Nadal choke in Wimbledon finals before (2006 and 2008) but for some silly reason, I didn't think he'd do it again.

I suppose it's time I stop underestimating Djokovic's mental toughness in the face of Nadal. Fans all over the place say the way Nadal submits to Djokovic now reminds them of how Roger Federer submits to Nadal, or how Andy Roddick submits to Federer. But in both of those cases, the man who would become the pigeon never boasted a winning record over the one who would make him so.

In some ways, the reversal of fortune seems more like what Federer did to David Nalbandian. After losing to the Argentine the first 5 times they played, the Swiss figured out a way to win. Thereafter, it seemed Nalbandian forgot how to beat Federer. Are we headed to a period when every match between Djokovic and Nadal will have a predictable outcome?


Getty

In yesterday's final, Nadal mentally went away at the end of the two sets that handed Djokovic the title. He struck his first double fault of the match serving at 3-4 in the fourth, and followed it with two errors off the ground. He saved one break point, but another error allowed Djokovic to serve out the match. At 30-30, Djokovic served and volleyed for the first time in the match, and then won championship point when Nadal struck a passing shot long.

Overall, it wasn't a spectacular effort or a very good match, but Novak Djokovic cements his place today as the new world No. 1 with the most coveted title in tennis.


Getty

Getty

Two Slams, the No. 1 ranking, and an astounding record of 48-1 on the year. If it's true, as pompelmo asserts, that every Pharoah has his Moses, then who's going to float up out of the bullrushes and cut his way through Djokovic's absolute dominance?

Petra Kvitova, Dangerous

Getty


Getty


Getty

It was her first Grand Slam final. She served out both winning sets to love, serving her first ace of the match on championship point. Her foe was a 3-time Grand Slam champion who won her first championship on the lawns of Wimbledon, blasting an anxious Serena Williams off the court in straight sets.

I fell in love with her the first time I looked into them there eyes. Them Bette Davis eyes. It was Fed Cup. 2007. A tie with the United States in the Czech Republic. It wasn't just that she wiped the floor with Bethanie Mattek-Sands and Alexa Glatch to win both her singles rubbers, it was the look in her eyes while she was doing it. Nevermind her great serve, her hard, flat ground strokes and champion-like reflexes, but there was a calmness and intensity at once that exuded from her eyes that made her dangerous in mine.

I just knew Petra Kvitova would be great. Knew it.

So when Serena drew her in the first round of the 2010 Australian Open, I feared her flawless, undefeated record in Slam first rounds would come to an end. Dangerous. Serena got through that match in a lopsided scoreline that didn't tell the whole truth about the points and games played.

So when Serena had to face her in the semifinal of Wimbledon last year, I figured she might fail to advance to defend her third Wimbledon title. Dangerous. Yesterday, after her 6-3 6-4 victory over Maria Sharapova -- in a match that was all about angles and ground missiles and shrieks and barks and breaks and nerves -- when asked about last year, Petra said she didn't believe she could beat Serena then, but knows she can now.

Dangerous.


AP


Getty

We have crowned a new Grand Slam champion. A young woman who can call both Caroline Wozniacki and Victoria Azarenka, two players hyped to the hilt as future champions, her contemporaries. But Petra has gone about her business without any hype at all. And wouldn't you know it, she has leapfrogged her tennis generation to the Winner's Circle with something other than Hollywood good looks and an adoring press.

It's probably a blessing hardly anyone was looking. The biggest victory in her career to date is her fourth title in 2011. She has won an international (Brisbane, outdoor hard), a premier (Paris Indoors, hard), a premier mandatory (Madrid, outdoor red clay), and a Grand Slam on the lawns at Wimbledon. A woman for all seasons.



Dangerous was the first film for which Bette Davis, the greatest actress of her generation, won an Academy Award. She won another a few years later for her lead role in a film entitled Jezebel. I'm not so sure anyone would consider Petra Kvitova a fallen woman, though she's got plenty of power behind her throne, but if the Academy Awards are to film actors what Wimbledon is to tennis players, I'd bet the farm Petra's got another acceptance speech in her somewhere down the road.


AP

Wimbledon 2011: Men's Final Preview

Novak Djokovic SRB (2) vs. Rafael Nadal ESP (1)

by Mad Professah, contributing writer 

This year I correctly predicted 3 of 4 men's quarterfinals, 4 of 4 women's quarterfinals, 1 of 2 men's semifinals, 2 of 2 women's semifinals and the women's final. 

Here are my predictions for the men's final at the Wimbledon Championships for 2011.

How They Got Here. 

Novak Djokovic played the most entertaining match of the fortnight against Jo-Wifried Tsonga, who was trying to repeat the amazing level of play which allowed him to dismiss 6-time Wimbledon champion Roger Federer in 5-sets after dropping the first two by dropping his serve in the first game of the match and holding serve in twenty-four consecutive service games to beat the Swiss great 3-6 6-7(3) 6-4 6-4 6-4. Djokovic was pushed by Tsonga to four sets, eventually winning 7-6(4) 6-2 6-7(9) 6-3. Tsonga mounted a challenge despite being down 4-2 in the 3rd set after winning an amazing exchange where both combatants ended face down on the grass. The crowd applauded ecstatically which caused both players to relax. This was a plus for Tsonga and a minus for Djokovic who was broken in the next service game and then lost a tight tiebrekaer despite having two match points. 

Rafael Nadal has now won 20 matches in a row at Wimbledon dating back to his 2007 five-set  loss in the final to Federer. Although Andy Murray was able to win the first set 7-5 through aggressive play (and an uncharacteristically sloppy sixth service game by Nadal). This was incredibly important moment for the Scot's tennis future to show that he could win a set against Nadal in a crucial match but  Murray had a momentary mental lapse (hitting a sitter overhead meters out of the court) which led to an early break in the second set. That, combined with an apparent groin injury made the result of the match very clear as the third and fourth sets slipped away quckly. The result was a 5-7 6-2 6-2 6-4 win to place the Spaniard in his 5th consecutive Wimbledon final (skipping the 2009 tournament due to injury).

The Match Up

Head-to-head Nadal leads Djokovic 16-11, but the Serbian has played Nadal in 4 finals this year and won every time, including (shockingly!) two wins in clay court finals (in Madrid and Rome). The only person who has beaten Djokovic in over seven months is Roger Federer, after playing some of the best clay court tennis he has ever exhibited in Paris this yearin the semifinals of Roland Garros. Let me repeat that: Djokovic has won 47 matches in 2011 and only lost one. Can he continue his amazing run now that he has had to play at a stratospheric level of near-perfection to reach his lifetime goal of becoming World #1? How long can he possibly maintain this form? Can anyone possibly beat Nadal in five consecutive finals?

The first thing Nadal mention is that this match is played at a major so it is the first time during Djokovic's streak they are playing best-of-five-sets tennis. It is also a historic moment, the winner of the first major of 2011 playing against the winner of the second major of 2011. Nadal unquestionably has more experience at this level; Djokovic is only playing in his 5th major final, where he has won 2 (against Tsonga in the 2008 Australian Open final and against Murray in the 2011 Australian final) and lost two (2007 US Open final to Federer and 2010 US Open final to Nadal). Nadal is in his 13th major final, sporting an impressive 10-2 record, with the two losses in finals coming here at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007 to the third member of the historic "trivalry," Roger Federer.

Mentally, I believe Djokovic has the edge in Sunday's match. Nadal hasn't even really been close in the last two matches they have played on clay which has got to worry him at important moments, especially if Djokovic gets off to a quick start. The only major finals Nadal has ever lost have been on grass and although Djokovic has never won a set against Nadal on the surface, Nadal knows that person he played then (in the 2007 Wimbledon semifinal and the 2008 Queens club final) is not the same person he will be facing on Sunday. That streak will almost certainly end.

The ATP website has a very interesting summary of the two player's performances at Wimbledon to date which seems to indicate Nadal has played at a slightly higher level. Nadal has an astonishing 113 forehand winners and (a paltry) 29 backhand winners compared to 35 forehand errors and 19 backhand errors. Djokovic has 62 forehand winners and 49 backhand errors compared to 46 forehand errors and 37 backhand errors. Nadal is listed as having had an amazing 244 winners and 60 errors (+184) over 6 rounds while Djokovic has a mere 199 winners and 99 errors (+100).

Their serves are equivalently effective: Nadal is serving at 70% in while Djokovic is at 68%. The Spaniard has served 44 aces to 6 double faults while the Serbian has served 54 aces and 15 double faults, which is basically about even.

Who Will Win

I tend to go with the idea that the person with the more effective serve will win the match unless the serve can be counteracted by superior movement and better service returning. With serves basically at a draw, I give Nadal the slight edge in movement but Djokovic the edge in returning. I believe the match will be very very close, probably on the level of the incredible Wimbledon finals of 2008 (Greatest Match Of All Time won by Nadal over Federer) and 2009 (won by Federer over Andy Roddick). 

MadProfessah's Prediction: Djokovic in 3 or 4 sets OR Nadal in 5 sets.

Wimbledon: Noticeboard

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

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

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

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

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

 

Legend

Hoity-Toity

Upwardly-Mobile

Sympathy Vote

Ideas above their station

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

Centre

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

Wimbledon: I will go down with this ship.

DAMN IT ALL TO HELL.

 

I blame Pippa Middleton.

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

I blame Goran’s quite appalling middle parting.

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

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


I blame the anguish, the audacity….


…and the resulting masochistic trauma.

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

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



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

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

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




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

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



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

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


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

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

I blame them all.

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



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

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

 

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

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

Rafael Nadal, Shotmaker

by Craig Hickman


Getty

My predictions tend to suck, but I didn't see any way at all that Andy Murray could win this match so long as Rafael Nadal could run.

And run he did. Swiftly, freely, as Randy says. 5-7, 6-2, 6-2, 6-4 was the final score but the last three sets weren't close at all.

I'm not sure Nadal gets enough credit for how magnificent his tennis on the lawns. Unlike Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, his game is not made for the slick stuff. But he's adapted and applied his extraordinary gifts amazingly to the surface.

To date, he's only lost to three people (Paradorn Shrichaphan, Gilles Muller, and Roger Federer) at the All England Club, all before winning his first title. Not even the great Federer can say that. The 6-time champion lost to four players before winning his first title (Jiri Novak, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Tim Henman, and Mario Ancic), and three players since (Nadal, Tomas Berdych, and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga). Nadal hasn't lost a match at Wimbledon in four years, and has now made 5 consecutive Wimbledon finals dating back to 2006. He couldn't defend his title due to injury in 2009.

At this point, I believe his best tennis on grass is better than his best tennis on clay. As Nadal said, grass allows you to do more things so it allows you to show off every weapon in your quiver. His athleticism and defensive skills have always been heralded, but his excellent hands are underrated. On grass, his touch and feel are on full display. What he can do with his racquet is often eye-popping. I'm not sure how many times I said aloud to whoever was in the room, "Did he really make that shot?" Most of what he came up with was simply beautiful.

And there was one crosscourt forehand passing shot winner struck, from 10 feet behind the baseline and on the dead run, with such whip to such a vicious angle that it landed smack on the sideline, leaving Murray stranded in a great position at the net. The crowd gasped.

I don't often hear Nadal referred to as a shotmaker, but that's exactly what he is. He doesn't just grind you down and wear you out. Yes, he does that, too. But on the lawns of Wimbledon, his racquet becomes a wand with which he can do anything. Anything at all.

It's going to take a spectacular effort for Novak Djokovic to beat him on Sunday.

Face Of The Day

Getty

The face of the new World No. 1, Novak Djokovic, who fought off Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 7-6(4), 6-2, 6-7(11), 6-3 to advance to his first Wimbledon final. On Monday, he will rise to the top of the rankings regardless of Sunday's outcome.

Wimbledon 2011: Men's Semifinals Preview

by Mad Professah, contributing writer 

Here are my predictions for the men's semifinals at the Wimbledon Championships for 2011.

Last year I predicted 1 of 4 men's quarterfinals correctly and 0 of 2 men's semifinals correctly. This year I correctly predicted 3 of 4 men's quarterfinals, 4 of 4 women's quarterfinals and 2 of 2 women's semifinals. 

Rafael Nadal ESP (1) vs. Andy Murray GBR (4). For the second year in a row, Andy Murray's goal to win his country's Grand Slam must go through World #1 Rafael Nadal.

 Head-to-head Nadal leads 11-4 with a 2-0 record on grass (2010 Wimbledon semifinal and 2008 Wimbledon quarterfinal). With Nadal allegedly not at 100 percent fit to play (a claim I am somewhat skeptical of) I think this gives Murray the best chance he has ever had to date to end the long drought of having a male British citizen appear in the Wimbledon final, let alone actually win the bloody thing. The four times Murray has beaten Nadal he has done it on hard courts with very strong serving, combined with first strike tennis using the forehand cross-court and the backhand down-the-line to Nadal's backhand. Murray is an excellent defender and loves to play long grueling points to demonstrate his fitness and mentally exhaust his opponents. This is exactly the wrong game plan against the (almost psychotically) mentally tough Spaniard.

Nadal has lost four consecutive times to Novak Djokovic this year because Djokovic has been getting multiple free points on his improved serve and is ridiculously flexible and strong enough to convert balls hit from defensive positions instantaneously  into offense. Murray can get free points on his serve if he serves well (i.e. in the 130 mph) but he shouldn't even THINK about playing defense. The way to beat Nadal is relatively clear: you have to bash him off of a very fast court (c.f. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga's 2008 Australian Open semifinal win, Juan Martin del Potro's 2009 U.S. Open semifinal win, Murray's own 2010 Australian Open quarterfinal win).

Basically you have to be prepared to hit 4 or 5 winners to win a single point and not get frustrated about doing it for two or three hours. Murray has been in 3 career Grand Slam finals so far and has failed to win a set in any of them. For all intents and purposes, this semifinal (just like last year's Wimbledon semifinal) is even more important than a final to Murray's career. So, if past performance is a predictor of future performance, Murray will under-perform his ability and lose in 3 sets to Nadal again. However, I strongly believe that Murray is getting closer and closer to a breakthrough and one indication was his strong showing in the 2011 French Open semifinal against Nadal (which Murray lost in straight sets but he had a LOT of chances, which he was unable to convert). I believe he will take that experience of having opportunities in Paris and the strong crowd support in London to give him a very decent chance to win this match and warm the hearts of a nation. PREDICTION: Nadal in 3 OR Murray in 4 or 5 sets.

Roger Federer SUI (3) Jo-Wilfried Tsonga FRA (12) vs. Novak Djokovic SRB (2). 

This is also a match which is "bigger" than a Grand Slam final, to one of the competitors (Djokovic), at least. If the Serb wins, he will be ranked World #1 for the first time in his career. If the Frenchman wins he would be the first of his countrymen to be in the Wimbledon final in the Open era. There are far fewer men (24) who have been ranked World #1 at some point since the rankings began in 1973 than have won a major final in that time period (almost 60).  It just so happens that this match-up is a reprise of the 2008 Australian Open final, won by Djokovic, but since that first encounter Tsonga has won 5 of 6 matches the two have played, including a stunning 5-set win in the 2010 Australian Open quarterfinals. The 2008 Australian Open final is an instructive match to analyze in understanding the dynamics between the two players because then, like now, Tsonga is coming off the biggest win of his career (in 2008 a surprisingly vicious beat down of Nadal in the Australian Open semifinal, in 2011 a stunning dismissal of Roger Federer in the quarterfinals of Wimbledon).

Then, Tsonga didn't start the match playing his best tennis until the second set and Djokovic exploited the lead to run away with the match and the title. However, it must be noted that what Tsonga achieved Roger Federer had not happened in 178 of the Swiss Great's 5-set Grand Slam matches--he lost the first two sets and then won the match (rather comfortably) with an early service break in each subsequent set and denying his opponent even a sniff at breaking his own.

Djokvic is a much better service returner than Federer so it's doubtful that strategy will work again but Tsonga has so much talent there are others that could work (serve and volley as much as possible, deny pace to Djokovic and then suddenly blast the ball for a winner) and most of all, Tsonga believes he can win. Djokovic has played 47 matches so far in 2011 and won 46 of them. This is an astonishing feat. Lately, his opponents have gotten closer and the new unbeatable Djokovic has shown some of the familiar tics of the old, retiring Djokovic, but I still believe that somehow, Nole will find a way to fulfill his destiny and win the match and reach the pinnacle of men's tennis.  PREDICTION: Djokovic.