Over five hours of tennis.
Epic, grandiose, nail-biting to the end. Federer should really have won. He
could perhaps even have won in three straight sets. But he didn’t. He probably
let Djokovic off the hook. No disrespect to Djokovic. He’s a truly great player,
but the majority of beautiful tennis, of excitement, thrills and variety came
from Federer. Djokovic seemed quite flat at times. All the more credit to him
for maintaining his focus but Federer had more chances. In their previous two
finals at Wimbledon it felt inevitable that Novak would win. Not yesterday.
That will make it hurt doubly for Federer. Next year he’ll be thirty-eight.
Logic dictates that yesterday’s final was his last though with Federer logic is
at times wasted. Some of the tennis he played yesterday defied logic. Sublime
drop shots, exceptional half volleys at his toes, backhands winners down the
line. The line is, he makes it looks easy. Which it isn’t. That is his genius.
Djokovic, at times, doesn’t make it look easy. But his defence is the greatest
in tennis history. That is his genius. You think he is in trouble, but he still
comes away with the point. Federer’s
game fits grass court tennis like a glove. Djokovic, at times, looks like a
flailing octopus in comparison. Yet he won. Aesthetics win you fans but they
don’t always win you tennis matches. Still I feel for Federer and felt very sad.
Novak is thirty-two and will have more chances. Federer may not. But his tennis
this year will stay with me for a long time. He was also part of the two
greatest matches on the men’s side. The other being the semi -final against
Nadal. Not quite an epic, but still four sets of thrills and spills by the men’s
game’s two greatest rivals and greatest stars.
Finals often disappoint, in other
sports too and this one started off quite subdued. But momentum gradually built, and it finished up
the longest men’s final ever, if perhaps not quite as dramatic as in 1980 between
Mcenroe and Bjorg, 2008 between Federer and Nadal and of course, Andy Murray
vs. Novak in 2013.The women’s final, by comparison, lasted one hour and was
fairly drab by comparison. The winner Simona Halep will receive the same amount
of money as Djokovic for spending a fifth of the amount of time on court.
Sometimes the quest for equality fails to deliver justice. Surely true equality
would oblige the women to play the best of five sets too?
Another highlight was Andy
Murray’s return to the doubles arena. Men’s and mixed with Serena Williams. It
was tremendous seeing them play together and enjoying themselves too. Not that
they weren’t competitive, but they were relaxed. A rare treat for them and the
spectators. Murray, it seems, still has a part to play, which is wonderful, a
player of true class. Serena Williams, like Federer, thirty-seven, impressively
again made it to the singles final. Not that long ago she almost died during
childbirth. She is an astonishing player and presence; a force of nature. Dan
Evans, the English player who was banned for a year for using cocaine acquitted
himself very well and is a very entertaining tennis player, with an old school
game suited to the fast grass. His 5 - set loss to Sousa, the Portuguese – a far
higher ranked player - was one of the matches of the tournament. Full of
suspense and excitement. If he had won and he had chances, he would have met
Nadal. What a thrill that would have been. He probably doesn’t have the weapons
to trouble the big guns, but he plays with skill, adventure and enthusiasm and
will hopefully have a successful year.
A couple of other points. In
the sixties and early seventies, Australia was one of the dominant countries in
tennis, both for men and women; Rod Laver, John Newcombe, Tony Roach, Ken Rosewall,
Margaret Court and Yvonne Goolagong amongst others. In the eighties we had Pat
Cash, in the nineties, Pat Rafter both sublime serve volleyers and grand slam champions and also Leighton Hewitt. Less
flamboyant, more pragmatic, but a world number one. This year, granted,
Ashleigh Barty won the ladies French Open, a fine achievement, but on the men’s
side who do we have? Bernard Tomic and Nick Kyrgios. Both have talent, Kyrgios,
in particular, is spectacular at times, but their attitude of belligerence and disinterest
and Kyrgios’ swearing and spitting on court – making his mate Andy Murray,
almost saint-like in comparison – are tiresome and depressing. Still, it’s their
life and it is only tennis, but the sport needs to maintain some dignity in a world
currently so lacking and they have failed to respect that, unfortunately. But as
Jean Renoir, the great French film Director, said, in his film, ‘The rules of
the game’, “chacun a ses raisons”, i.e. “everyone
has their reasons”. I’m not judging them but as a tennis fan it is my right to
criticize.
Wimbledon, like Christmas come
around once a year and disappears too quickly. A metaphor for life, I suppose.
I miss it already.
Ahhh ... so eloquently and beautifully written. I was able to watch most of the turnament this year on a proper screen and thoroughly enjoyed my big faves. I was so disappointed that Federer passed up on at least the one match point yesterday . . . . what a joy he is to watch and what an amazing match. These guys are something else ........ and yes I agree ... over too quickly and I, too, miss it already. Thankyou Lewis for a great read.
ReplyDelete