Articles by Steve Tignor

It's fitting that Roddick, Clijsters will enter Hall of Fame together

Fri, 21 Jul 2017 14:09:00 +0000

It would be hard to find a more well-matched pair of Hall of Fame inductees than Andy Roddick and Kim Clijsters.

The American and the Belgian are both 34, and their careers were almost exactly concurrent. They joined the tour at the turn of the century and retired within days of each other at the 2012 U.S. Open. Five years later, they’re both first-ballot Hall of Famers.

These days, 34 sounds like young for a player to receive tennis’ final honor in Newport. Clijsters’ and Roddick’s two primary nemeses, Serena Williams and Roger Federer, are still out on tour winning majors at 35. Roddick and Clijsters, it seems, were the last in the long line of players who made their breakthroughs as teenagers and hung up their racquets when they crossed that ancient, and now vanished, tennis Rubicon of 30.

Clijsters turned pro in 1997, at age 14. Two weeks after her 16th birthday, she made a stunning Grand Slam debut by coming out of qualifying to reach the fourth round at Wimbledon. She retired for the first time at 24 in 2007, before coming back to win three more majors and reach No. 1 as a mom.

Roddick turned pro in 2000, at 18. In 2001, he signaled a changing of the U.S. men’s guard when he beat Pete Sampras in Miami and Michael Chang at the French Open. In 2003, he recorded his first win over Andre Agassi, won the U.S. Open and finished No. 1. Roddick would spend nine straight years in the Top 10, and see his career-long commitment to U.S. tennis rewarded with a Davis Cup title in 2007.

At first, Roddick and Clijsters looked like they could be the first great players of the 21st century. His 140-m.p.h serve was an evolutionary advance for the game, and in those days his forehand was nearly as lethal. Clijsters, the ultra-athletic daughter of a gymnast and a soccer player, was at once a power baseliner and an acrobat. We winced in awe whenever she did a full split as she chased down a forehand.

But it didn’t take long for each of them to collide with someone who was better than they were, and who would stay better.

Clijsters met her match almost immediately, at the 1999 U.S. Open, when she faced a 17-year-old Serena in the third round. That much-anticipated showdown between two major winners of the future proved prophetic. Clijsters led 5-3 in the third set, but Serena won the last four games. The next week, Serena would win the first of her 23 Slams; it would take Clijsters another six years to win the first of her four.

Roddick’s experience with Federer was similar. Federer won their first four meetings, but his mastery was most clearly displayed at Wimbledon in 2003. Coming into the event, the two young men were co-favorites to win their first major. Federer had won the tune-up in Halle, while Roddick had done the same at Queen’s. But Federer put a quick and decisive end to the competition when he played rings around Roddick in the semis, before going on to win the first of his 19 majors.

Roddick and Clijsters would win their share of races, but they would also be known for getting passed at the finish line. Clijsters lost her first four Grand Slam finals, while Roddick lost all four that he played against Federer. In her first, at the 2001 French Open, Clijsters lost 12-10 in the third set to Jennifer Capriati. In his last, at Wimbledon in 2009, Roddick lost 16-14 in the fifth set to Federer.

If Clijsters and Roddick weren’t the greatest players of their era, they were among the most resilient. Clijsters’ natural talent was never so apparent as when she came out of retirement in the summer of 2009, played two tournaments and won the U.S. Open in her third. And whether it was a new coach, a new playing style or a new training regimen, Roddick was always willing to go in a different direction in order to get the most out of his game. That loss to Federer in the ’09 Wimbledon final was the best match Roddick ever played. Five years later, Clijsters’ and Roddick’s careers look a little better than they did when they retired. No one younger than Kim has come along to give Serena a serious run, and no American man has come along to fill Roddick’s shoes.

In both of their cases, though, their appeal in retrospect is less about what they did on court than how they acted off it. Their personalities, rather than their records, are what the Hall of Fame will celebrate this weekend.

Clijsters has always been described as “nice,” and that hasn’t changed. At Wimbledon this year, I saw her happily chatting and laughing with various journalists as if they were old friends. She’s a star, but she never holds herself above anyone she meets; when you talk to her, you feel like you know her. To say an athlete is “nice,” of course, is not typically considered a compliment, and perhaps Clijsters would have won more if she had a mean streak. But she didn’t, and it wasn’t like her to pretend that she did. Because of that, no player was more popular with her peers. With her Slam wins and time at No. 1, Clijsters proved that nice tennis players can finish first.

Roddick, sharp, witty and straight-talking, had a bigger personality. He wasn’t always a model citizen, but he was someone who could give you a thoughtful answer on just about any subject. And for a No. 1 player, he was highly self-aware and self-deprecating, a fact that has only become more evident since he retired. In 2013, Roddick attended a gala event in New York to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the ATP’s computer rankings. Surrounded by fellow former No. 1s like Federer, Rafael Nadal, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe and Stefan Edberg, he landed the line of the night when he said, “I’m proud to be the worst player in this room.”

At the Hall of Fame in Newport, Roddick may feel the same way, and he’s OK with that.

“I’ll be in the room,” he says with quiet satisfaction. “When you think of yourself in there with someone like Rod Laver, you feel the gravity of it.

“I can’t compare myself with guys like that, but just to have that commonality with your heroes is a great feeling.”

Roddick and Clijsters are in the room. And when their ageless peers and nemeses—Roger, Rafa, Venus, Serena—finally join them in Newport, they’ll be proud to be in there with Andy and Kim.

—ATP UMAG: Can’t make it to Croatia? Don’t miss a second of live match coverage of ATP UMAG on Tennis Channel Plus. Watch exclusive match coverage of ATP UMAG featuring Fabio Fognini on Tennis Channel Plus.

—World Team Tennis: Catch up on the best matches from World Team Tennis with encore coverage exclusively available on Tennis Channel Plus. Watch encore coverage of Maria Sharapova’s anticipated World Team Tennis return on Tennis Channel Plus.

—International Tennis Hall of Fame: Watch encore coverage of the International Tennis Hall of Fame ceremony only on Tennis Channel Plus. Celebrate your favorite legends and watch the International Tennis Hall of Fame ceremony with inductees Kim Clijsters and Andy Roddick.

—Wimbledon Semis and Final encore: Relive the best moments from London on the Wimbledon Encores channel only on Tennis Channel Plus.

—Get Tennis Channel Plus for 650+ live events all year long. Tennis Channel Plus is available on any streaming device, on mobile, always on the GO (desktop, iOS, Android, Apple TV, Roku and Amazon Fire). Subscribe today at BuyTCPlus.com

In 1977, Wimbledon took the men's game to new heights of popularity

Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:39:00 +0000

The summer of 1977 was one of the most colorful and enduringly significant in tennis history. Throughout this year's Grand Slam season, we're celebrating the 40th anniversary of that most memorable of sporting summers. Click here to read the first part of our three-part Summer of 1977 series, on Guillermo Vilas' miraculous, bittersweet year.

“It’s the day of the superstar,” Gordon Forbes thought as he took his seat inside a sun-drenched Centre Court to watch the 1977 Wimbledon men’s final.

Looking down at the familiar well-worn grass, Forbes watched two of the superstars of the new game in action. Bjorn Borg, 21, and Jimmy Connors, 24, the first pure products of the Open era, were about to play a fifth set for the title.

“Marvelously detached. Inscrutable. Patient. There is a balance in his perspective,” Forbes marveled at Borg, as the Swede raced to a 4–0 lead.

When Connors roared back to make it 4–4, Forbes compared the American to “a complicated machine that has been finely programmed to hit hundreds of risky winners.”

Connors slapped his thigh and rolled his head like a prize fighter. Borg silently bent down into his return stance, showing no signs of the emotions roiling him. The championship was in the balance and Centre Court was on a knife edge.

It was the only way for this extraordinary fortnight to end. WIMBLEDON WAS NEVER BETTER, Sports Illustrated declared when it ended, and it was hard to argue. After 100 years, the ’77 edition showcased a men’s field that—in the form of semifinalists Borg, Connors, John McEnroe and Vitas Gerulaitis—had reached a peak of popularity, personality, quality and controversy.

Superstars had come to tennis, and the pro game was about to take a turn in the sun. In 1977, the International Lawn Tennis Association, which had run the sport for 65 years, dropped “Lawn” from its name. It was an acknowledgement of the fact that, by the 1970s, tennis was tennis, whether it was played on a grass-court preserve or on one of the new public asphalt courts being laid down across the United States.

Before the first day’s play, Wimbledon held a champions’ parade, in which all living singles winners were invited back to receive a medal. Forty-three of 52 past champions attended, including Rod Laver, who hadn’t played at Wimbledon since 1971. His second-round loss later that week was seen by many as the end of a more gentlemanly era in tennis.

In place of Laver, the sport now had Connors, for better or worse. The champion in 1974, Connors was also scheduled to receive a medal. Instead, while the parade was held on Centre Court, Jimbo practiced with Ilie Nastase on the grounds.

Connors said he needed to test a splint for his injured thumb, and hadn’t intended to snub the club. That’s not how the fans saw it; they showered him with boos when he appeared for his first match. Only when a serve hit Connors in the crotch and sent him tumbling to the grass did their jeers turn to cheers.

The next day, Wimbledon announced that a medal would not be sent to any champion “who had the extreme discourtesy not to collect it.”

Still, Connors made his way through the draw as expected. The only surprise was that his “Ugly American” antics suddenly seemed tame when compared to those of the 18-year-old he would meet in the semis. There was a new Johnny Rotten in town, and his name was McEnroe. Years earlier, Connors had been branded “The Brat” by the British tabloids; their writers upped the ante for McEnroe, who would forever be known in their pages as “Superbrat.”

That summer McEnroe skipped his prep-school graduation in New York for a European adventure at the French Open and Wimbledon. The self-described “unheralded amateur with chubby cheeks, thick thighs and Snickers bars in my equipment bag” made it through qualifying, and then found himself, to his surprise, cruising into the second week on the strength of his lefty serve and precocious racquet-work. But it wasn’t McEnroe’s talent that fans noticed first; it was his temper.

In a preview of tantrums to come, McEnroe, in his quarterfinal against Phil Dent, put his foot over his wooden racquet and threatened to snap it in half. When the spectators voiced their disapproval, he kicked the frame across the grass. The boos got louder. But McEnroe discovered—not for the last time—that his temper didn’t undermine his talent, and he beat Dent in five sets. The teen’s adventure would take him to a place he never expected: Centre Court, and a meeting with Connors.

Did McEnroe’s countryman welcome him to the big time with open arms? Not exactly. In the locker room beforehand, McEnroe timidly tried to introduce himself to Connors. “He wouldn’t look at me,” McEnroe recalled. “He wouldn’t even acknowledge my existence.”

“Do I even belong here with this guy?” McEnroe wondered. “At that moment, I pretty much decided I did not want to win this match. Couldn’t handle it.”

McEnroe’s wish was granted. Connors ground him down in four sets, but not before acknowledging that “this skinny kid was probably going to be around for a while.” Jimbo had seen the future and, for a day, he had intimidated it. The decade-long rivalry between these two hot-headed Irish-American lefties had gotten off to an appropriately unfriendly start.

As Jimbo and Johnny Mac exited Centre Court, Borg and Geruliatis entered. The Angelic Assassin and the Lithuanian Lion made for an oddly matched pair. Each sported long, blond hair and wore skin-tight white shirts and ultra-short shorts—Borg was in his customary Fila pinstripes, while Gerulaitis had his Sergio Tacchini collar turned up. For the next five sets, their play was as crisp as their clothes.

While Connors and McEnroe made their noisy way through the fortnight, Borg had done the same in his trademark style—silently, and a little miraculously. He survived a five-set scare against Mark Edmondson in the second round; the sometimes janitor went up two sets to love before Borg woke up.

Now Borg had to survive another, even more perilous five-setter, against Gerulaitis. When Gerulaitis wasn’t at Studio 54, the fast-talking 23-year-old from Queens was coming into his own as a player. That spring he had won the Italian Open, but Gerulaitis’ finest tennis came in his loss to Borg.

Borg won the first set, but Gerulaitis settled in and took the second with his measured attack. By the third, both men were in peak form, and the match crested in an epic fourth game.

When Gerulaitis broke to go up 3–2 in the fifth set, on yet another clean winner, Borg looked ready to lose. The question was, did Gerulaitis think he was ready to win? Then, for the first time all afternoon, Gerulaitis hesitated.

Borg took advantage, broke back and escaped, 8–6 in the fifth. Gerulaitis’ shoulders slumped after he shook Borg’s hand. He would never reach a Wimbledon final, and he would never beat Borg.

If Connors vs. McEnroe was the start of a great rivalry, Borg vs. Gerulaitis was the start of a great friendship. Gerulaitis showed up the next day at the club where Borg trained, and said, “Whenever you want to practice, I’m ready.”

As oddly matched off the court as they were on it, Borg and Gerulaitis would be inseparable from then on.

"A fair bit of old tennis there, one could safely say,” Forbes thought two days later, as he sat in Centre Court and recalled the Borg-Gerulaitis semifinal. The same could be said for the match finishing in front of him. Again it was Borg who escaped, 6–4 in the fifth set. It was a fitting end to Wimbledon’s remarkable Centenary, and a fitting start to a new—if brief—golden age.

Connors, McEnroe, Gerulaitis and Borg—friends and rivals—would make their summer lightning strike for the next four years. From Wimbledon 1977 to the U.S. Open in 1981, they would win 14 of 18 majors. At the ’81 Open, all four again reached the semifinals, but by then the old pecking order had been overturned. When McEnroe beat Borg in the final, Borg drove out of Flushing Meadows and never returned. The sun had set on tennis’ first superstars.

—ATP UMAG: Can’t make it to Croatia? Don’t miss a second of live match coverage of ATP UMAG on Tennis Channel Plus. Watch exclusive match coverage of ATP UMAG featuring Gael Monfils and Fabio Fognini on Tennis Channel Plus.

—Wimbledon Semis and Final encore: Relive the best moments from London on the Wimbledon Encores channel only on Tennis Channel Plus.

From RF19 to Mugu-ruthless: Five stories to remember from Wimbledon

Mon, 17 Jul 2017 14:04:00 +0000

LONDON—So much happens over the two weeks of a major that it can be hard to recall what we were all so obsessed and upset about just a fortnight ago. In the case of this year’s Wimbledon, that’s a good thing. Remember “bored” Bernard Tomic? Remember male players dropping like flies in the first round on Centre Court? Remember John McEnroe’s “Serena would be 700th on the ATP tour” comments? Remember the hole in the court?

With the glaring exception of the grass itself—the hole only grew bigger—things improved at SW19, at least until the very end. After being forced to spend the first week talking about players who didn’t care, we were lucky enough to spend the second week talking about, and marveling at, two players who care as much as any two players ever have, Venus Williams and Roger Federer. Their runs at 37 and 35, respectively, defined this year’s edition of Wimbledon.

But there was more, some of which would be a shame to forget as quickly as we forgot Bernie Tomic. Here’s a look at five moments I’ll remember from the 2017 Championships.

*****

Rybarin’ to Go

While I was walking past Court 18 one day early in the tournament, a player caught my eye. She was lean and long-limbed, and, in her white dress, looked and moved and hit like a ghost from tennis’ past. Two ghosts came to mind, actually, both of Cold War vintage: Hana Mandlikova of Czechoslovakia and Natasha Chmyreva of the Soviet Union. Like those women, Magdalena Rybarikova was playing a quietly stylish and languidly athletic brand of tennis that appeared to be tailor-made for the grass-court game of another, less power-centric era. Could it possibly work in this one? The answer, against all odds, turned out to be yes. Rybarikova would upset No. 3 seed Karolina Pliskova in the fortnight’s most picturesque match on Centre Court and go on to reach the semifinals. The 28-year-old Slovakian, who had undergone two separate surgeries over the last year, and had never made the second week here before, said she was surprised at her lack of nerves. They finally hit her in the semifinals; then her opponent, Garbiñe Muguruza, ran her over. Hopefully when she gets back up, Rybarikova will continue to be as successful—and watchable—on hard courts this summer as she was on grass.

*****

Triple Threat-ened

It was the match of the tournament on the men’s side—for everyone except Rafael Nadal. His fourth-round loss to Gilles Muller, which took four hours and 48 minutes and a 15-13 fifth set to complete, was enough to bring Rafa to his knees after one missed return of serve. But it wasn’t his body that betrayed him; it was his nerves. Nadal had numerous chances to break serve in the fifth, but he couldn’t come up with the shot he needed. It was an old problem with Rafa, one that many of us thought he had left behind during his brilliant start to the season. Outside of the French Open, this was the fifth straight major where he had exited in a five-setter.

Nadal wasn’t the only member of the Big Four to falter earlier than expected. For Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray, both of whom passed their 30th birthdays this spring, it was the body rather than the mind that rebelled. As with Rafa, old problems caught up to them in the quarterfinals. First, Murray hobbled off a loser to Sam Querrey; the hip issue he had been nursing, and camouflaging, through the first week had flared again. Later the same day, Djokovic was forced to retire in the quarterfinals with an elbow issue that he said has plagued him since the beginning of 2016.

Speculation about their futures began immediately. Djokovic said he was contemplating a break from the game, while reports circulated that Murray would need surgery. Either way, the verdict of the tennis community was unanimous: Murray and Djokovic needed to follow in Federer’s footsteps and take an extended sabbatical. (Federer himself wasn’t so sure; he said, rightly, that everyone’s different and that some players don’t react well to time off.) As the game ages, will “rest” become its prevailing mantra? The U.S. Open, among other events, is praying the answer is no. The loss of Djokovic right now would be particularly unfortunate. His new tri-bromance with coaches Andre Agassi and Mario Ancic was the summer’s most intriguing new development.

Still, because this is Wimbledon, Murray managed to steal the show and turn defeat into social-media victory. His mumbled interjection of “male” when an ESPN reporter said that the U.S. hadn’t had a player in the semifinal of a Slam for eight years got a lot more Twitter mileage than his loss to Querrey, which is good. It’s too common for people who are describing the pro game—I’m guilty of it, too—to say “tennis” when we really mean “men’s tennis.” Maybe Murray’s mumble, and the publicity it received, will begin to change that.

*****

The Empires Strike Back (Temporarily)

Great Britain and the U.S. are two of the sport’s Grand Slam nations; together they created the Davis Cup 117 years ago. Aside from Murray and the Williams sisters, though, neither has been a power to reckon with at the majors in this century. On the men’s side, it had been eight years since the U.S. had put a male player in the semifinals of a Grand Slam. On the women’s side, it had been 39 years since a player from Great Britain had reached the semifinals or better at Wimbledon. Both of those droughts came to welcome ends when Querrey and Johanna Konta made it to the final four.

Querrey was the beneficiary of Murray’s injury in the quarters, but give the Californian credit for winning three straight five-setters. Asked if he would become the focus of national attention, the way Murray is here each year, Querrey scoffed. “I mean, it’s not like tennis is the most popular sport in America,” he said. “This isn’t the NBA championships or anything.” At 29, Querrey hardly announced himself as the future of American tennis, but he did show that progress is possible.

While Querrey moseyed into the semis and downplayed its impact back home, Konta made millions of people around Great Britain sit up and take notice of her for the first time. Her early win over Donna Vekic, 10-8 in the third, was a Centre Court classic, and her comeback win on the same court over Simona Halep, 6-4 in the third, may have been the finest fight of her career. When hundreds of fans stayed on Henman Hill in the pouring rain to watch that match, she had officially become a star. “Our Jo,” the pro-Brexit Sun newspaper called her after she lost to Venus Williams in the semifinals. Did the editors know her parents are Hungarian, she was born in Australia, she just become a British citizen in 2012 and she’s done her most important training in Spain? Konta’s acceptance here was another example of tennis crossing borders and climbing over walls, even in a time when those walls are getting higher.

*****

A Tale of Two Sets

The women’s final had the makings of a classic. Muguruza and Venus Williams are 14 years apart in age, but their games were virtual mirror images on Centre Court. Six-footers with regal bearings, imposing serves and bullet ground strokes that they rarely temper, the two women started by holding 10 straight times. Every shot felt not just like a way to win a point, but a way to establish a position of psychological dominance. But each of them also had the same weakness: a forehand that could go off at any time. The key was that, just as Muguruza’s forehand appeared destined to go off, she made it stay on. It was left to Venus to miss two crucial forehands at the end of the set.

Muguruza had been impressive all week. She had leaned in and powered her shots toward the corners as she always does, but this time they found their targets; tennis coaches tell you to aim three feet from the lines, but Muguruza made that advice sound hopelessly uncool. Still, what finally won her the title was her ability, at 4-5 in the first set, to forget the two forehands she had just missed and not miss a third. That’s what turns a slugger into a player, and this player into a champion. We know Muguruza can rise to the occasion. Can we get her to rise to a few non-occasions as well? Tennis is better when she’s better.

While Muguruza was off to the races after the first set, Venus’ game staggered to a complete, silent halt. Her coach said she never settled down during the final; like Marin Cilic the following day, the court and the moment magnified every mistake, and soon she couldn’t put the ball within five feet of the lines. She had gone as far as her body and mind could take her at 37. But while the rest of us were reeling from the experience, Venus already seemed to be bouncing back. “I think there’ll be other opportunities,” she told her sister through the TV camera. Venus had tried to match Serena and keep the Wimbledon plate in the family. She had fallen short, but she succeeded in keeping another tradition of her own alive: leaving with her head held high. It has worked too well for too long for Venus to abandon it now.

*****

RF19

Federer’s Wimbledon was a triumphant ride—cruise, really—from start to finish, but it was robbed of some of its glory in the end. By the final, his chief rivals—Nadal, Djokovic and Murray—had all fallen by the wayside. And then on Sunday, Cilic’s blister, and his emotional reaction when he couldn’t overcome it, took the air out of Centre Court. To me, the moment to remember from his eighth title here, and his 19th major win, came in the semifinals.

Federer was up two sets to love against Tomas Berdych. He had produced his best tennis exactly when he needed it, hitting four straight point-winning forehands in the second-set tiebreaker. Now he was up a break in the third, and it was showtime.

As he walked to the baseline to serve, Federer bounced a ball off his foot. Watching it roll away, he said something to it in a deep, mock-scolding voice—“Noooooo,” perhaps. Rather than have a ballperson track it down for him, Federer walked over, picked it up, stepped back to the line and fired an ace down the T.

Federer says his resurgence has been all about rest and recuperation and getting back to full strength, and there’s no question he’s a better, sharper, more complete player now than he was over the last two or three years. By winning two major titles at 35, he has given athletes and sports fans a new question to ponder: How long can good health win out over age? How long can talent, properly cared for, hold off Father Time? As Federer said on Sunday, he’s discovering that it may be longer than he, or any of us, once believed.

For now, Federer’s Wimbledon win was an appropriate way for the first half of 2017 to end. It was a six-month stretch that was utterly dominated by two names that seemed to be fading into the rearview mirror: Together, Federer and Nadal swept the three majors and won four of the five Masters events played—only Rome escaped their grasp.

Seven years ago, in 2010, I predicted that Federer would end his career with 19 major titles and Nadal would finish with 16. For a long time, I thought I had erred on the high side. Now it’s pretty clear that I—along with many others—underestimated them all along.

—Wimbledon Semis and Final encore: Relive the best moments from London on the Wimbledon Encores channel only on Tennis Channel Plus.

With health coming first, Roger Federer's possibilities are endless

Sun, 16 Jul 2017 18:49:00 +0000

LONDON—Asked what he missed most about professional tennis, Pete Sampras once said that it was the feeling that would come over him an hour before the Wimbledon final. He would start to feel sick, because he knew the whole world was going to be watching.

That’s how most players talk about Centre Court. On the one hand, they wouldn’t trade the chance to play on it for anything; on the other, walking out there is the most nerve-wracking experience of their lives.

On Sunday, Roger Federer wouldn’t have wanted to be anywhere else. With his 6-3, 6-1, 6-4 win over Marin Cilic, he won his men’s-record eighth Wimbledon—for the first time, he did it without dropping a set—and his men’s-record 19th major title. After limping out of the same arena 12 months ago with a knee injury, and wondering if he would ever be back again, this was one of the most gratifying wins of Federer’s two-decade career.

For Cilic, though, his first experience in a Wimbledon final was nothing short of a nightmare. Two days earlier, at the end of his semifinal win over Sam Querrey, he had begun to feel pain from a blister on the ball of his left foot. Tournament physios had worked on it before the final, but the pain persisted through his practice on Sunday morning.

“They did as much as they could,” Cilic said. “Every time I had to do a reaction fast, fast change of movement, I was unable to do that.”

After being broken at 2-2 in the first set, Cilic’s game quickly unraveled. His swings were late, and he lunged for the ball, rather than taking little steps to set up. By the end of the set, knowing that the pain wasn’t going to cease, he was in tears.

“It was just a feeling that I knew that I cannot give my best on court,” Cilic said, “that I cannot give my best game and my best tennis, at such a big match.”

Watch Roger Federer's championship-sealing point:

Federer said he wasn’t aware of what Cilic’s specific problem was; as of his post-match press conference, he still didn’t know.

“I thought maybe he was dizzy or something,” Federer said. “Because I couldn’t tell what it was, it actually made things easier...Because I didn’t know and I couldn’t tell, I just said, ‘Focus on your game.’”

Beforehand, I had picked Cilic to win. He had been building up to this moment through the grass-court season, and he had nearly beaten Federer here last year. But even when Cilic was hitting decently at the start today, Federer was up to the challenge. He handled Cilic’s flat deep drives, and by the middle of the first set he had begun to read the Croat's serves and tee off on them.

Federer’s new, freer, stronger backhand was in evidence, too. Near the end of the first set, he rocketed two backhand passes at Cilic from close range; the second one went for a winner. In this match and in his straight-set quarterfinal win over Milos Raonic, the man who beat him here in 2016, Federer showed how much better—sharper, stronger, more complete—he is now compared to 12 months ago.

“Honestly, it was all based on health,” Federer said. “It wasn’t about the game itself, how I should play when I came back to Wimbledon this year. It was all [to try to] put myself in a good physical state that I could compete with the best and play seven times in five sets. That was my goal. I achieved that.”

Tennis Channel discusses Roger Federer's record-breaking victory:

The British sportswriter Simon Barnes used to say that Federer had the ability to make it seem as if he and his opponent were colluding to raise his game to greater heights. Look closer, of course, and you can see that Federer’s victories are based on his ability to attack his opponents, to get in the first strike more successfully and consistently than they do. But there was a sense during this fortnight that fate, or the tennis gods, were colluding to push Federer to victory.

It felt, from the start, like a re-coronation. Rafael Nadal, Federer’s great rival, lost 15-13 in the fifth set in the fourth round. Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray, champions here the last four years, were felled by injury in the quarterfinals, while Cilic was slowed by a blister.

The fans at Wimbledon didn’t mind. They gave Federer standing ovations for forehand winners. After each of his wins, they waited for him to cross the elevated foot bridge that connects Centre Court and the media center; when he gave them a wave, they waved back. They were ready to explode in the final, until the air was taken out of the building by Cilic’s emotional reaction to his blister problem.

Tennis Channel interviews the 19-time Grand Slam champion:

After a battle-scarred two weeks, Federer, at 35, was the last man standing. He credited the support of his family and team for getting him back to this place.

“I did ask them the question sincerely, to everybody on my team, if they thought I could win majors again,” Federer said. “Basically, the answer was always the same from them: That they thought if you’re 100 percent healthy and you’re well prepared, you’re eager to play, then anything’s possible.”

Federer says he’s still surprised by how well his 2017 has gone.

“So I guess you would have laughed, too,” he told a reporter, “if I told you I was going to win two Slams this year.”

The experience has opened his eyes about what he can accomplish—with the right amount of rest—in the future.

“I just got to always remind myself that health comes first at this point,” he said. “If I do that, maybe things are actually possible that I didn’t think were.”

What would keep him going to 40? That old Centre Court feeling, of course.

“I’ve always been a big-stage player,” Federer said. “I always felt like I played my best on the biggest courts. I struggled on Court 18, to be honest...I just didn’t feel I hit the ball as good there than on Centre Court. That was always going to be a good thing, if I played the best players, or in the bigger matches, that that would serve me well.”

Sampras, the player who Federer passed today for the most Wimbledon men’s titles, missed that Centre Court feeling after he retired, even though it had made him sick. Nineteen years after his debut here, Federer still can’t get enough. He’s not going to miss it until he absolutely has to.

—GRAND SLAM WEEK: Watch Wimbledon Primetime on Tennis Channel, and catch up on the other 2017 Grand Slams on Tennis Channel Plus
—Watch encores from the 2017 French Open and Australian Open on Tennis Channel Plus, including matches like the AO Final showdown between Serena & Venus Williams

Wimbledon Men's Final Preview: Can Cilic stop the unstoppable Federer?

Sat, 15 Jul 2017 18:40:00 +0000

Roger Federer [3] vs. Marin Cilic [7]

“Does Cilic have a chance?” is the question of the hour at the All England Club. The answer is an emphatic yes. In fact, there may be as many good reasons for picking him as there are for picking his more famous and accomplished opponent.

Yes, Federer has a 6-1 record against Cilic, but their matches have tightened considerably over the last three years. At the Rogers Cup in 2014, Federer won in three close sets. Then, a month later, Cilic stunned him in the U.S. Open semifinals, 6-3, 6-4, 6-4. While Federer avenged that defeat in the Wimbledon quarterfinals last year, he had to pull off an epic, match-point-saving high-wire act to do it. The lesson we can take from those three matches is that Cilic’s game matches up well against Federer’s these days. His serve is strong enough to keep him close, and he has the reach and the two-handed backhand to do damage on his return. At the Open, and through the first two sets at Wimbledon last year, Cilic dominated the rallies.

If Cilic’s game is strong enough to stay with Federer’s, the question becomes psychological. How will he react if he builds a lead this time? It isn’t so much whether he believes he can win the match—of course he believes that. But does he believe he should win this match? I liked the way Cilic handled his first Wimbledon semi; things could have gotten a lot more complicated against Sam Querrey, but Cilic made sure they didn’t. Querrey, of course, is not Federer, but Cilic knows he can win majors, and he’s unlikely to be satisfied with a close loss and a moral victory on Sunday.

Federer has done just about everything right in this tournament. He hasn’t dropped a set, and he beat two quality opponents, Milos Raonic and Tomas Berdych, in his last two matches. The question for him will be how he reacts if he finds himself trailing for the first time this fortnight. Federer has looked a little tight in three first sets—against Dusan Lajovic, Mischa Zverev and Berdych. He managed to win them all in tiebreakers, and didn’t look back from there. For that reason, the first set of this final may be even more important than normal.

Over the last few years, we’ve seen Federer look very good early in Slams, only to falter at the end. He solved that problem in Australia, and kept the title-winning momentum going in Indian Wells and Miami. But has he solved it for good? Finally, rain is a possibility. While Federer obviously likes playing under a roof—he won the title under it in 2012—the big-serving Cilic shouldn’t be seriously disadvantaged by going indoors.

Whoever wins, this is a deserving contest, even if it doesn’t feature an all-Big Four showdown. Federer-Cilic at Wimbledon was the match of the year in 2016. Why shouldn’t we get to see it again in the final?

Winner: Cilic

Muguruza was as calm as she was strong in racing to Wimbledon title

Sat, 15 Jul 2017 17:26:00 +0000

LONDON—Garbiñe Muguruza’s 7-5, 6-0 win over Venus Williams in the final here on Saturday was a tale of two matches. One set was taut, tight, tense and rivetingly competitive. The other was a blowout. The dividing line between them was very clear: This title was essentially decided by two mirror-image points at the end of the first set.

Serving at 4-5, Muguruza hit a forehand long and a forehand into the net to go down 15-40—double set point for Venus. Muguruza’s forehand had been shaky at the start, and now it looked like it was going to cost her. On the next point, the Spaniard and the American engaged in the longest rally of the match to that point. Venus, naturally, directed most of her shots toward the Muguruza forehand, but this time the Muguruza forehand held firm. Instead, it was Venus who finally blinked, netting a forehand of her own. Muguruza saved another break point and held for 5-5.

In the next game, it was Venus’ turn to go down 15-40, and it was Muguruza’s turn to test Venus’ forehand in another long rally. Again it was Williams who blinked. She sailed a forehand long, and Muguruza had the first break of the match. It was all she needed. The 23-year-old held for the set and went on to win six more in a row in just 26 minutes.

During those six games, Muguruza’s level stayed high; she made just one unforced error in the second set and didn’t put a foot wrong while galloping down the homestretch. But in the surprise of the day, Venus’ game, which had grown stronger with each match, suddenly vanished without a trace—she struggled just to keep the ball in the court, or within five feet of the lines. Midway through the set, Venus tried to come to the net more. Theoretically, going on the attack was a better idea than staying back and making errors, but Muguruza had the answers. Near the end, Muguruza hit a backhand pass crosscourt at the same time that Venus broke in the other direction. It was a painful symbol of the second set for Williams, who could hardly muster a grunt by the end.

“There’s errors, and you can’t make them,” Venus, still tight-lipped, said afterward when she was asked what had happened. “You can’t make them. I went for some big shots and they didn’t land.”

Venus didn’t reveal much more in her press conference, but in trademark Williams fashion she was able to go out with her head high, and a hopeful note for her sister.

“I tried my best to do what you do,” Venus told Serena through the camera on court. “But I think there’ll be other opportunities.”

If anyone can make them happen, it’s Venus. We know that, even at 37, she’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

“She played really well,” Venus said of Muguruza. “I mean, she played top tennis, so I have to give her credit for just playing a better match. I’ve had a great two weeks. I’m looking forward to the rest of the summer.”

Muguruza walked on court with her game face on, and then some. There were no polite smiles from her in the moments before the match started. She had lost the final here two years ago to Serena Williams, but she hadn’t forgotten what Serena had told her that day: You can win this thing. Muguruza had looked to be in winning form since the round of 16 on Monday, when she knocked off No. 1 seed Angelique Kerber.

Leaning in and never hesitating, Muguruza was uncannily accurate with her high-risk attack. She aimed for corners, and that’s exactly where the ball landed. But she didn’t swing mindlessly. When the first set was on the line at 4-5 and she needed to keep her shaky forehand in the court, she dialed back the aggression, stayed steady and won the long rally she needed to win.

“I always come very motivated to the Grand Slams,” Muguruza said. “Since I lost the final here, I wanted to change that. I came thinking, ‘I’m prepared, I feel good.’ During the tournament and the matches, I was feeling better and better.

“I feel incredible to be able to play [Venus] here. Of course I’m nervous because I always dreamed about winning it, but I was composed.”

This is Muguruza’s second major title, and with her win over Serena at the French Open last year, she becomes the first player to beat both of the Williams sisters in Slam finals. Perhaps more remarkable is the fact that, during those 13 months, she has failed to reach another final. Which means it’s too early to make any predictions about Muguruza being the new face of the WTA—she’s not going to play like this every week. What we can say is that, while she doesn’t win often, she has the game and the mentality to win big, and to make the most of her chances when they present themselves. At 23, Muguruza has a Wimbledon and a French Open. With those trophies at home, who needs to be No. 1? Serena herself has always prioritized the Slams over the rankings.

Still, it would be nice to think that Muguruza, who worked for these two weeks with another Spanish Wimbledon champion, Conchita Martinez, could find this level again on a regular basis. Tennis is better when its best players play well, and it’s much better when Muguruza is leaning into her shots, aiming an inch from the line, taking a brave cut and putting the ball right where she wants it to go.

Wimbledon Women's Final Preview: Five-time champ Venus meets Muguruza

Fri, 14 Jul 2017 20:05:00 +0000

Garbiñe Muguruza [14] vs. Venus Williams [10]

We love finesse and craftsmanship, but power tennis usually wins the day, or the fortnight, at women’s Grand Slams. That has held true in 2017: Serena Williams won the Australian Open and Jelena Ostapenko, firing with both barrels, won the French Open. It’s obvious that heavy artillery will rule again at Wimbledon, when two of the game’s hardest hitters square off.

Muguruza-Williams promises fireworks. Any player who reaches a major final is, by definition, playing well, but these two have really transcended their usual levels over the last three matches. Muguruza faced down two former Grand Slam champs who were on their games, Angelique Kerber and Svetlana Kuznetsova, in the fourth round and quarterfinals; and in the semis she ran over Magdalena Rybarikova. Venus handcuffed Ostapenko in the quarters, and dictated from start to finish against Johanna Konta in the semis. Judging by those performances, and the intense focus each woman brought to them, it’s hard to imagine either Muguruza or Venus losing in the final.

But one of them must. Muguruza and Williams have played three completed matches; the American has won two, the Spaniard one. Two of them went three sets. Each likes grass, and each will try to get in the first strike in the rallies. Muguruza’s ground strokes have been slightly more lethal and perfectly placed; and if you believe in historical symmetry, it’s interesting that the last woman to beat a 37-year-old in the Wimbledon final, Conchita Martinez (she defeated Martina Navratilova in 1994), will be coaching Muguruza on Saturday.

But I think Venus’ strengths give her the advantage. She’s a more natural defender, and her serve is a bigger bail-out weapon than Muguruza’s. And she desperately wants to keep that trophy in the family.

Winner: Williams

Roger Federer and Venus love what they do, and that keeps them winning

Fri, 14 Jul 2017 20:04:00 +0000

LONDON—Think of them as the 20th-century kids. Roger Federer and Venus Williams both made their Wimbledon debuts back in the now-mythic 1990s, as talented but raw 17-year-olds.

Despite high expectations and obvious skills, neither made it out of the first round. In 1997, Venus lost to Magdalena Gryzybowska of Poland in three sets. “I was so nervous in my first match here, it was a total disaster,” Williams said with a laugh yesterday. “Poor young V.” Two years later, Federer, a wild card, lost to Jiri Novak in five sets.

Neither let those setbacks discourage them. There are few tennis players who don’t love Wimbledon, but Federer and Venus identified themselves with this place and this event right from the start, and every year since they’ve made winning it their first order of business. The same is true for the Olympics, which they made cool for tennis players to care about. Venus and Federer were from the first generation of pros who grew up watching tennis at the Games, and they were the first to fully embrace it when they had the opportunity. The thrill of their first Olympics, which came in Sydney in 2000 for both of them, never wore off. Venus and Federer have always been, first and foremost, tennis enthusiasts.

The thrill of winning Wimbledon has obviously never worn off for them, either. In 2000, Venus won her first title here; in 2001, Federer upset seven-time champ Pete Sampras in the fourth round in the first undeniable sign of his potential. Venus would go on to win Wimbledon five times, and Federer would tie Sampras with seven.

Until this week, those numbers appeared to be set in stone. Williams, now 37, won her last Wimbledon as a wide-eyed 28-year-old in 2009; Federer won his last in 2012, at 30, an age that used to be seen as a Rubicon for tennis players—to go past it meant to go into terminal decline. Now, in a remarkable co-story—a story for the aged, as it were—they’re both back in the final. For Federer, it’s his 11th in 19 trips to Wimbledon; for Venus, it’s her ninth in 20 trips. Federer is the oldest man to reach the final here since Ken Rosewall in 1974; Venus is the oldest woman since Martina Navratilova in 1994.

Each has played this tournament with a similar sense of resolve and tenacity; they’ve been determined not to let the chance slip, and as Grand Slam champions tend to do, they’ve improved with each match.

Venus and Federer have two of the most reliable, and somewhat underrated, serves in tennis history, and it has all started with that shot during this Wimbledon for them. This was doubly true in their straight-set semifinal wins, over Johanna Konta and Tomas Berdych. Down a break point at 4-4 in the first set, Venus uncorked a 106-m.p.h. second serve. Down two break points in the third set against Berdych, Federer fired three aces and a service winner. As Grand Slam champions tend to do, they’ve found something extra when they’ve needed it. At 1-1 in the second-set tiebreaker against Berdych, Federer suddenly let loose with four straight point-winning forehands to break the match open.

For Venus and Federer, it’s about letting instinct—instinct informed by 20 years of experience—take over.

“I feel like it reminded me of the matches I’ve had this tournament on some occasions, you know, there were chances for the opponent,” Federer said. “I was able to come up with the goods when it mattered.”

“I’m just out there competing,” Venus said after beating Konta. “I try to produce whatever I need at the time. There’s no plan or anything like that. I don’t plan. I’m just trying to compete.”

Most people will look at Federer and Venus and wonder how they can physically stay with players a decade, or even two decades, younger than they are. To me, though, what’s surprising and remarkable is what they’ve done mentally this season.

For years, as she got older, Venus struggled in close matches; like Rafael Nadal, she specialized in making stirring comebacks, only to lose in the end. Federer’s problem wasn’t losing close matches so much as it was losing late in Grand Slams after looking like the best player in the tournament for the better part of two weeks. It appeared that rather than slowing them down, age had robbed them of just enough of their confidence and edge to make winning major titles seem beyond their reach. But their Australian Open successes—Federer won the tournament, Venus reached the final—signaled a rebirth for both of them, confidence-wise.

What’s the secret to their success? Not dwelling on how old they are seems to be one. “I’m not thinking about age,” Venus said earlier this week. When Federer was asked about being in the final at 35, he quickly deflected the question by talking about how happy he was to see Rosewall in the Royal Box on Friday.

The other key, of course, is loving what you do. Venus and Federer love tennis like few others have, enough to keep traveling, keep getting on airplanes, keep practicing and keep grinding on tour for 20 years. This, another Wimbledon final, is their reward. But they both know it’s too early to celebrate.

“There’s still a lot to be done,” Venus said on Thursday. “I’m definitely excited. There’s one more match that I’d like to, you know, be the winner of. But I like to take courage in the fact that I’ve been playing well this tournament and this year, and all these moments have led to this.”

“It’s a big deal,” Federer said on Friday. “I love this tournament. All my dreams came true here as a player ...Yeah, unbelievably excited. I hope I can play one more good match.”

Between them they have 72 years, 40 seasons on tour and 12 Wimbledon titles, but Williams and Federer are still talking like rookies. Would you bet against the 20th-century kids this weekend?

In a time of borders, tennis keeps crossing them

Fri, 14 Jul 2017 13:40:00 +0000

LONDON—On Thursday afternoon, a man stood on Henman Hill, beer in hand, and shouted his support for his countrywoman, Johanna Konta. He said he was happy to have a chance to root for a British player, and that he liked Konta because she was a “real battler.” What he didn’t realize was that her parents are Hungarian, she was born in Australia and lived there until she was 14, she has only been a citizen of Great Britain since 2012, and that she did her most important training in Spain.

“Really? I didn’t know that,” he said after hearing her story from a reporter.

This account comes from an article in Friday’s Times (of London) by Alyson Rudd, entitled “Centre Court’s Newest Star Fails to Win Hearts.” Rudd’s point isn’t that Konta was too dull to spark the crowd, or that, as a child of immigrants, she wasn’t British enough for a post-Brexit audience.

“Henman Hill was hardly a viper’s nest seething with Konta’s credentials,” Rudd writes. She goes on to quote a group of students on the subject:

“Mo Farah is British, so she can be,” one of the kids says. “We live in such a multicultural society so you can’t deny someone who wants to call themselves British.”

Even the pro-Brexit Sun couldn’t find anything threatening in Konta, who has spent the fortnight proclaiming her love of baking, the Spice Girls and U2.

“VENUS PROVES TOO STRONG FOR OUR JO” was the paper’s headline the day after she lost to Venus Williams.

Tennis, a sport of individuals who fly from one country to another virtually every week, has a way of breaking down national barriers and, especially since the fall of the Iron Curtain, making the playing field a little flatter. The 16 singles quarterfinalists at Wimbledon this year hailed from 13 different countries: Romania, Great Britain, Latvia, the U.S., Slovakia, Russia, Spain, Luxembourg, Croatia, Canada, Switzerland, the Czech Republic and Serbia.

Tennis, as much as any other sport, reflects a world in motion. As Konta shows, even players who don’t necessarily look like they come from somewhere else can come from somewhere else. In pursuit of training, players routinely cross borders at a young age, and the tours are a sort of traveling international circus. The de facto ringleader of that circus at the moment, Roger Federer, is Swiss, but his mother grew up in South Africa. He has dual citizenship there, and he speaks English, French, German and Swiss German.

Of course, Konta’s story isn’t proof that the world is perfectly level, or that it swirls in all directions. Her parents moved from Hungary to Australia, not the other way around, the same way Milos Raonic’s parents moved from Montenegro to Canada. And it would be nice to say that within the tennis world, all walls came tumbling down and everyone mixed with everyone else with no thought of where they were from. But in player lounges and press rooms, people gravitate toward their countrymen and countrywomen. Whether it’s language or sensibility, the cultural barriers don’t disappear.

To me, though, this milieu offers a clarifying and refreshing blend of both worlds. In the U.S. these days, it can be hard to know if the concept of being an “American” still exists; we’re more likely now to see ourselves as liberals or conservatives, red-staters or blue-staters, first. But there’s nothing like going abroad to let you know that your country really is part of who you are. I never feel more American than when I’m sitting, the way I have been over this fortnight, in a row that includes reporters from Italy, Spain, Germany and the UK.

What’s more important, though, is that the tennis world also lets you know that your way of looking at the world isn’t the only way of looking at the world. You can see and hear a different language and accent every few yards in the media room or the player lounge. One of my favorite experiences at Wimbledon was running around the grounds on Manic Monday one year trying to see a few games of all 16 matches. I’ve forgotten everything about the matches; what I remember is meeting a journalist I knew from a different country—from Italy, from China, from Spain, from Great Britain, from the Czech Republic, from the U.S.—at virtually every court. It was the best day in tennis for that reason alone.

Tennis is a community of its own, insular and exclusive like many communities, but also made up of members from virtually everywhere. And that’s really why, as Alyson Rudd writes in The Times, Konta failed to fully stir up the passions of the British tennis fans on Henman Hill this year: They didn’t know her very well.

“She’s only really become big in the last couple of weeks,” a fan named Rebecca says. But there’s hope for Jo. “She seems nice, someone you would want to support. She’s suddenly the poster girl for Britain.”

As Rudd writes, “When Heather Watson faced Victoria Azarenka in the third round, Centre Court was a much more passionate and warm place. Watson is part of British tennis, she has a connection with the spectators ... They at least knew her history, her quirks and foibles, and ability to float and sink.”

Watson grew up on the island of Guernsey, and her mother, Michelle, is from Papua New Guinea, not the middle of England. But the fans know her, and that’s enough to make her part of the British tennis family.

It takes time with tennis fans. “The best bit of the day,” a woman named Susan told Rudd, “was seeing Virginia Wade.” Wade, of course, is “Our Ginny,” the last Wimbledon women’s winner from Great Britain. The sight of her taking the trophy from the Queen in 1977 is part of the country’s collective sporting memory. But Wade’s mother was born in South Africa, and Wade lived there with her parents—and learned to play tennis there—until she was 15. Like so many tennis players, she’s from more than one place, but she’ll forever represent the successes of English tennis. Give her a few years, a few heartbreaks and hopefully a few triumphs, and Konta—Hungarian born, Australian raised, Spanish trained—will be part of the family, too.

Wimbledon men's semifinal previews: Federer-Berdych and Querrey-Cilic

Thu, 13 Jul 2017 18:48:00 +0000

Marin Cilic [7] vs. Sam Querrey [24]

You again? Cilic and Querrey have met at Wimbledon twice before, and both times they’ve gone the distance—and then some. In 2009, Cilic won 6-4 in the fifth set; in 2012, Cilic won another, much longer fifth set, 17-15. So it’s conceivable that this 1:00 P.M. semifinal could go all afternoon. But this time, perhaps more than the other two times, Cilic is the clear favorite. Querrey is coming off one of the biggest wins of his career, over Andy Murray, and will be feeling the high from that match. But after three straight quarterfinal appearances at Wimbledon, Cilic has been leading up to a dark-horse run to this final for a while now.

Winner: Cilic

Roger Federer [3] vs. Tomas Berdych [11]

Federer has looked like his old unstoppable self at this tournament, especially in his last match, a straight-set win over the man who beat him here last year, Milos Raonic. Berdych would seem, at first glance, to be an unlikely candidate to stop him when he’s in this form. Federer is 18-6 against the Czech, and has won their last seven meetings. But stranger things have happened—on two occasions, to be specific. In 2010, Berdych beat Federer in the quarterfinals here, and in 2012 he beat him in the quarterfinals at the U.S. Open. Berdych also had a match point on Federer in Miami this year before losing, and he looked good in beating Dominic Thiem in the fourth round. But Federer is better rested than he was in Miami, and he’s a better player.

Winner: Federer

Konta had the crowd, but Venus showed that Centre Court belongs to her

Thu, 13 Jul 2017 18:24:00 +0000

LONDON—The first serve that Venus Williams hit on Thursday flew straight at her opponent, Johanna Konta, who lunged just in time to avoid getting drilled by it. The ball landed well beyond the service line, but its message had been successfully communicated: If you can’t take the heat, the five-time Wimbledon champion seemed to be saying, you’re not going to last long on my court. And yes, while she hasn’t won here since 2008, Venus still looks like she believes that, with her sister Serena absent, Centre Court belongs to her. That’s how she’s played ever since she was invited back onto it on Monday.

Konta, despite the strenuous efforts of the audience, who hadn’t seen one of their own women in a semifinal here in 39 years, didn’t last long in Venus’ domain. In one of her cleanest performances in years, Williams terminated the Brit’s storybook run with maximum efficiency, 6-4, 6-2, in 73 mostly tense minutes. In doing so, she became, at 37, the oldest Wimbledon finalist since Martina Navratilova in 1994.

It wasn’t Venus’ power alone that won her this match. She hit just two aces, she and Konta both averaged 104 m.p.h. on their first serves and Konta actually smacked more winners, 20 to 19. It was Venus’ accuracy, and her ability to rise to any challenge, that made the difference. Often erratic in the past, on Thursday her shots were measured with precision and struck with a blend of aggression and margin. She never played it safe, but she made just nine errors in 18 games.

Venus played suffocating tennis, and forced Konta to match her intensity. But while Venus didn’t need to hit risky shots to do damage, Konta had to redline her game to keep up. Venus sent the same message with her early returns that she had with her serve; any time she got a look at a second ball to her backhand, she went for broke, and she usually made it. Konta was never not under pressure.

Eventually, Venus broke down Konta’s forehand. By the second set, the shot—which is her most effective weapon—wasn’t there for her anymore. When it failed, she had no plan B. Instead of trying to throw Williams off by varying her spins and speeds, Konta kept powering the ball into the American’s strike zone, and watching it come back faster.

The turn came with Venus serving at 4-4 in the first. Konta had played brave, clutch tennis to stay on serve, and she was rewarded with Venus’ first stumble: a double fault for 15-30, and a shanked swing volley for 15-40. The crowd buzzed in anticipation of a Konta service break; little did they know that the match was about to swing in Williams’ direction for good. Venus saved one break point with a backhand winner, and then came up with the shot of the match, a 106-m.p.h. second serve that completely handcuffed Konta.

Asked where the “instinct” came from to go for that serve at that stage, Venus smiled, shrugged and said, “I try to produce whatever I need at that time. There’s, like, no plan, or anything like that. I don’t plan. I’m just trying to compete.”

Venus was the superior competitor from that point on. She won eight of the last nine points for the set, broke early in the second and powered to a 4-1 lead in what felt like a matter of minutes. In fighting off Konta’s challenge, Venus raised her game and never let it drop.

“I think she did what she does well,” Konta said of Williams. “She dictated the match from the very first ball till the very last one ... It was very difficult for me to get a good foothold in the match. The few opportunities that I did get, she did incredibly well to take them away from me.”

Venus said she was trying to represent the Williams family name as best she could.

“I miss her so much,” Venus said of Serena. “I try to take the same courage on the court that she would have. I tried to do the things she would do. I don’t know that I play exactly the same way she does, but I really tried to be inspired by it.”

After her quarterfinal win over Jelena Ostapenko, I wrote that this year’s Venus looked like the Venus of old once she reached the second week. Ten years ago, when she stepped onto Centre Court in the later rounds, her game became much stronger and cleaner, and the errors vanished. That has happened again in 2017, but something else has happened, too. In the absence of her sister, Venus herself has looked more commanding on court, the way she did when she, and not Serena, was No. 1 in the world and appeared destined to be the dominant champion of the future.

Between them, the Williams sisters have won 12 of the last 16 Wimbledons. With Serena away, every woman in the draw knew she had a better—maybe a once-in-a-lifetime—chance of winning this title. But only Venus, who likes to say of her sister that “her win is my win,” had a chance to defend that title. The crowd on Thursday belonged to Jo Konta, but Centre Court, until proven otherwise, still belongs to the Williams family.

Wimbledon Women's Semifinal Preview: Venus-Konta, Rybarikova-Muguruza

Wed, 12 Jul 2017 21:13:00 +0000

Garbiñe Muguruza [14] vs. Magdalena Rybarikova

“She has really impressed me,” Rybarikova said when she was asked about facing Muguruza in the semis. Rybarikova noted how aggressive Muguruza has been in beating Angelique Kerber and Svetlana Kuznetsova in her last two matches. That’s true, but what may be more troublesome for the Slovakian is how consistently Muguruza has been hitting her targets. The Spaniard is swinging for the fences, but putting the balls in the corners.

Still, Rybarikova also mentioned another, more auspicious fact for her: She won their only meeting on grass. While she has never gone deep at Wimbledon, Rybarikova loves the surface here, and after winning two Challenger events on it last month this stylishly finesse-oriented 28-year-old might feel as if she can’t lose on it, either. Still, logic and history say that on grass, and at the majors, power will ultimately triumph over court craft in a WTA match. Which means that Muguruza should win. But I said the same thing about Rybarikova’s last match, against CoCo Vandeweghe, and we saw how that turned out.

Winner: Muguruza

Steve Tignor stopped by the Tennis Channel set at the All England Club to discuss the late rounds of Wimbledon:

Johanna Konta [6] vs. Venus Williams [10]

The day’s showcase match will feature the hope of a nation versus a five-time champion—it doesn’t get much bigger than that. These two have only been facing each other since 2015, but they already have a history together. Konta has won three times, and Venus twice; three of those five matches have gone the distance. As Konta says, they’ve “had their battles.”

How will this, the most important of their battles so far, turn out? Each will, presumably, be iron-willed: Konta will have the crowd behind her, and Venus will have nine years of waiting to end; the last of her titles on Centre Court—her favorite court—came in 2008, when she was a sprightly 28. Venus wants this trophy more than any other, and she must know that not having her sister here gives her the best chance she might ever have to win it again.

The keys would seem to be the Venus serve and the Konta return. Venus virtually won her quarterfinal with Jelena Ostapenko with that shot alone. Fifty-three percent of her serves were unreturned, while only 20 percent of Ostapenko’s were. This is where the Konta return game comes in. Can she put Venus’ serve back in the court and force her to rally? If she can’t, she’s going to feel the pressure on her own serve all afternoon.

Winner: Williams

Querrey’s Wimbledon win was a breakthrough he had doubts would come

Wed, 12 Jul 2017 19:54:00 +0000

LONDON—“How big a deal is it for you to defeat Andy Murray today?”

This was the first question Sam Querrey was asked after his 3-6, 6-4, 6-7 (4), 6-1, 6-1 win over the world No. 1 on Wednesday. Querrey answered the only way a kid from Southern California could.

“I mean,” he said, “it’s a really big deal.”

A few minutes later Querrey was asked if he ever doubted, after playing 41 majors and failing to reach the semis at any of them, if he would ever make it this far. Again he sounded like a quintessential Yank in London.

“Yeah, probably,” was his answer.

But Querrey was at his surfer-dude best when a reporter lobbed this ominous question in his direction:

“How does it feel to just dash the hopes of an entire nation?”

“I don’t feel like I just ruined the hopes of every British person out there,” Querrey said with a slightly exasperated smile. “Everyone needs to take a little chill pill.”

Tennis Channel discusses Sam Querrey's upset of Andy Murray at the All England Club (part one):

The win was a major, and admittedly unexpected, breakthrough for the 29-year-old, 24th-seeded Querrey; no player in the Open era has gone so long before reaching a Slam semi. And it was a breakthrough for U.S. men’s tennis as well. The last man from the States to reach the semifinals at any Grand Slam was Andy Roddick here in 2009. A decade ago, the 6’6” Querrey had been tagged as a possible successor to Roddick. That never came to pass. Querrey could destroy a serve and a forehand, but his old-school power-American game wasn’t nimble or flexible enough for the Big Four era. Until Wednesday.

“Just an incredible match,” Querrey said, “I’m just so happy right now.”

He also sounded a little bit surprised. It wasn’t just that Querrey was trying to get past the quarters at a major for the first time. It wasn’t just that he was trying to beat Murray, the defending champion and home favorite, for the first time since 2010. Querrey’s victory also must have come as a shock because of the way he began the match.

He was awful. Broken in his first service game, he lost the first seven points. Querrey looked a step slow, and he couldn’t find any timing on his forehand. Murray expertly kept him off balance by moving him wide, making him bend and drawing him forward, but even when Querrey had a good look at a ball, he couldn’t do much with it. While Murray’s shots didn’t have much sting, that seemed to be the point; he quickly led by a set and a break and all seemed right with the world on this sunny day on Centre Court.

But Murray’s carefully constructed finesse fortress began to crumble at 4-3 in the second. Querrey finally relaxed and found his timing, and Murray stopped calibrating his slices quite so expertly. He was walking a fine line by giving up so much ground, and Querrey finally invaded it. Querrey broke for 4-4, and broke again for the set with a laser-guided crosscourt backhand winner. He was free of Murray’s web.

“I was a little nervous at first when we got out there,” Querrey said. “But then, when I broke back in the second, kind of took a deep breath.”

“I just kind of stayed with my game,” he said. “I tried to play aggressive and keep swinging after the ball. I didn’t want to alter my game and get into those cat-and-mouse points, because that’s where he’s really good.

“I just kept my foot down, and just kept trying to pound the ball.”

Tennis Channel discusses Sam Querrey's upset of Andy Murray at the All England Club (part two):

If there’s a better summation of the Sam-I-Am style of play, I have yet to hear it.

While Murray would do his best to hang on, he needed that second set. The hip injury that he had been nursing and working around all tournament flared again, the pain steadily growing worse. By the fourth set, a limp had set in, one that would become more pronounced with each game. By the time he walked off the court to the cheers of the crowd, the no-longer-defending-champion was hobbling badly.

“I think I had chances in the first three sets,” Murray said. “I mean, the second set, I think I was up 4-3, then got broken twice ... I did manage to win the third. You know, maybe I could have got the match done in three sets there had I closed out the second after getting the break.”

But Murray rightly credited Querrey with serving well down the stretch, and taking his chance when he had it. Querrey finished with 27 aces, won 84 percent of his first-serve points and hit 70 winners.

Querrey has had more ups and down in the last 10 years than he can probably remember. He has questioned his commitment to the tour grind in the past, but as his 30th birthday approaches, he could be on the verge of adding his name to the ATP’s ever-growing late-bloomer brigade. And he appreciates it.

“It’s an exciting moment,” Querrey said. “Not many people get to play tennis professionally, let alone play at Wimbledon, play on Centre Court, play against Andy Murray. It’s really special.”

But let’s not go overboard; Sam is still as chill as always. A British reporter cited the “bloom of expectations” that he believed would surely grow in the U.S. after his win; he asked Querrey if he would do anything to “sort of buffer yourself from that a little bit.”

Querrey, ever the American, shot him a quizzical look.

“Not really,” he said. “I mean, it’s not like tennis is the most popular sport in America. This isn’t the NBA championships or anything.”

But it’s the semifinals of Wimbledon, and that’s something for the U.S. men’s game to celebrate.

Wimbledon Men's Quarterfinal Preview: Three champs, and Cilic, favored

Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:30:00 +0000

Andy Murray [1] vs. Sam Querrey [24]

Querrey beat Novak Djokovic at Wimbledon last year. Is another shocker from the American a possibility in this Centre Court opener on Wednesday? It’s a stretch. Murray is 7-1 against Querrey, his only loss coming seven years ago on hard courts in Querrey’s hometown. In general, Murray’s wins haven’t been close, either. Querrey has the weapons—serve, forehand—to win points against Murray, but not to win them over and over the way he needs to do against the ultra-consistent Scot in a best of five.

Winner: Murray

Marin Cilic [7] vs. Gilles Muller [16]

Often the players who have been winning in the weeks before a Slam, and who you think could be dark horses ... don’t end up being dark horses. See Feliciano Lopez at Wimbledon this year. In the case of Cilic and Muller, though, form has held true; Muller won a title on grass in Holland, Cilic reached the final on that surface at Queen’s and here they are playing for their first trip to the Wimbledon semis. As amazing as Muller’s effort was against Rafael Nadal, and as well-equipped as he is for grass, Cilic will be favored. He beat Muller at Queen’s, and hasn’t dropped a set at Wimbledon.

Winner: Cilic

Roger Federer [3] vs. Milos Raonic [6]

Top billing on Centre Court goes to this rematch of last year’s semifinal win by Raonic. When Federer limped off a fifth-set loser, and took the rest of the season off, many thought he might never return to this or any other court. Now here he is, 12 months later, the favorite to win it all again. Despite his loss to Raonic last year, he’s a strong favorite to get revenge on Wednesday. While Federer has yet to drop a set, Raonic is lucky to have survived his fourth-rounder against Alexander Zverev. The German helped him back into that match; the Swiss probably won’t.

Winner: Federer

Novak Djokovic [2] vs. Tomas Berdych [11]

At 31, Berdych continues to surprise. Last year at Wimbledon he reached the semis for the first time since 2010, and now he’s fresh off a five-set win over one of the stars of the future, Dominic Thiem. With Djokovic still finding his way back to top form, this might seem like a prime opportunity for him to get his first win over Djokovic in 12 matches, and his third in 28 meetings. On second thought, looking at those numbers, forget I mentioned it.

Winner: Djokovic

There's mental toughness, and then there's what Venus is doing at SW19

Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:44:00 +0000

LONDON—When Venus and Serena Williams were young and in the early, heady days of their dominance, they used to talk about how they felt as if they took on new personas when they reached the second week of a Grand Slam. Like the born champions they were, they walked and talked—and most important, played—with more confidence the closer they came to the crown.

That was especially true for Venus at Wimbledon. Once she settled in and reached the latter stages of the event, she made Centre Court her second home and personal workspace. She won her first eight semifinals here (Her loss in that round last year was her first.) Only her sister has beaten her in a Wimbledon final. If it wasn’t for Serena, Venus might have eight titles here, and she would be trying to tie Martina Navratilova’s modern record of nine as we speak.

Instead, Williams will have to settle for tying another remarkable Navratilova record: With her concise and convincing 6-3, 7-5 win over Jelena Ostapenko on Tuesday, the 37-year-old American became the oldest player to reach a Wimbledon semifinal since Martina did it on her last-hurrah run to the final in 1994. In her 20th Wimbledon, Venus reached her 10th semi.

Whatever her age, Venus played with her old sense of command on Centre Court on Tuesday. As with Andy Murray, the fast surface and the this-is-serious atmosphere in that arena seem to help her channel her game, to play with a simple, straightforward, self-assured sense of aggression. It starts—and almost ends—with her serve, which gave her a decisive edge over Ostapenko at the start of each rally. Venus had eight aces to Ostapenko’s one; more important, 53 percent of her serves went unreturned, compared to 20 percent for Ostapenko.

No serve was bigger than the one Venus came up with at 4-5, 15-30 in the second set. She had let an early lead in that set slip, and now was just two points from having to play a third. When her toss went up and out to her right, it was easy to see what she was planning to do with the ball: Slide it down the T. Even so, Ostapenko had no chance to catch up to the slice that Venus put smack onto the center service line. Afterward, Venus made it sound as if she were saving her best serves for just this occasion.

“Been working on that serve,” Venus said later. “It’s working out for me just in time, just for these later rounds. I’d like to think that I can rely on that as the matches continue.”

Venus won the last three games with powerful but safely-measured ground strokes sent deep and down the middle of the court. She hit her forehand, which has often been her shakier wing, with pace and consistency. For the first time since the start of the French Open, Ostapenko couldn’t dictate play. She was handcuffed.

“I definitely think experience helps, for sure,” Venus said while lauding Ostapenko’s skills as a player, and especially as a competitor. “For a lot of the players I’ve played, it’s their first time in the third round or the quarterfinals. So I have an opportunity to bank on experience in having dealt with those sort of pressures before.”

Ostapenko’s magical 11-win ride is over. Is Venus about to complete a sixth magical, title-winning ride of her own at Wimbledon? It would be her most remarkable yet, not just because of her age, but because of what has been on Venus’ mind: the fatal traffic accident that she was involved in last month in Florida. Early in the tournament, she teared up talking about the crash, and while she’s no longer asked about it, there’s still an understandably somber quality to her press conferences. Her answers are short, though they’re still shot through with the same mystical optimism as always, the same mystical optimism that you need to make the Wimbledon semis at 37.

“I love the last day you play, you’re still improving,” Venus said. “It’s not something that is stagnant. There’s always a reason. You have to get better. I love that.”

“The competition with other players,” she continued. “The competition keeps you growing. You have to get better if you want to stay relevant.”

“I feel quite capable, to be honest, and powerful,” she said when she was asked how she has played so well for so long. “As long as I feel like that, I know I can compete for titles any time.”

There’s mental toughness, and there’s knowing how to compartmentalize. And then there’s what Venus has been doing over this fortnight. She has never been emotive on court, but during this tournament she has been even more stoical and subdued than usual. Her wins bring a smile, but it’s one of satisfaction and relief rather than the giddiness she typically shows in victory. She says she feels as if Serena and her father, while they’re not here, are “fighting right alongside me.”

In the old days, Venus and her sister would grow more confident in the later rounds at Wimbledon, and as they took command of Centre Court. Those old instincts have kicked in again, right when she has needed them most. As she says, there’s always a reason to get better. A Wimbledon title at 37 may be the best reason of all.

Keeping Tabs: Schedule rage; Angie’s “fury”; Konta—darling of a nation

Tue, 11 Jul 2017 11:14:00 +0000

LONDON—Why does the All England Club schedule just three matches on its show courts on Manic Monday, when four would allow them to host more competitive, and presumably crowd-pleasing, women’s contests?

Is it old-fashioned sexism? Not according to tournament officials, who said there’s no “favoritism” involved. Is it because they want to save the grass? That’s a nice thought, but typically they have no trouble putting an extra match or two under the Centre Court roof when it rains, and the turf doesn’t seem the worse for it. Is it just tradition? This is a tournament, after all, that held onto its gentlemanly 2:00 P.M. start time for a century.

No, the explanation, according to Richard Lewis, the club’s chief executive, is probably not the one you were imagining. It’s about off-peak train tickets.

“It doesn’t work for us to have four matches,” Lewis said. “Even with a start time of 1 P.M. people find it difficult to make it to the stadium on time. They want to use their off-peak fares.”

On the one hand, as The Guardian points out, this is a laudable point of view. A show-court ticket already costs a proverbial arm and a leg. On the other hand, its seems a bit arbitrary. No other Grand Slam starts its early-round schedules so late. The Wimbledon fans with grounds passes are asked to be there by 11:30. And you would think that the prospect of seeing four matches instead of three would be enough to get people to set their alarms a little earlier.

As for the women players’ reactions to being pushed to the side courts on Monday, The Sun tries its best to bring their outrage to a boiling point:

KERBER GIVES BOSSES A VOLLEY
Top seed Angelique Kerber was furious over Wimbledon bosses denying her the chance to take center stage

I hadn’t heard about this—what did Angie say?

“I was really surprised I was playing on Court 2 again,” Kerber ranted, “...I was looking forward to playing on one of the two big courts. But the schedule was already out, and what could I do about it?”

OK, OK, I’m not sure I would call that a “furious” reaction, exactly, but it’s a start. Going by Wimbledon time, the issue will be resolved in another 50 years or so

*****

It’s official: the London papers, and hopefully the people who read them, know who Johanna Konta is now. This is what happens when you become the first British woman since 1984 to reach the quarterfinals. It also helps if you add a little photogenic emotion to your celebrations, which Konta, despite her reputation for baking and blandness, seems happy to do. The newsstands in the Wimbledon village today are one long picture of her emoting after her fourth-round win over Caroline Garcia.

What’s nice, though, is how low-key the tabs keep their Konta coverage. No undue pressure on her; no hopes placed perilously high; no glorification of her game or personality.

Here’s The Mail’s eight-column banner headline on this shy Backstreet Boys fan:

ENTER THE ICE QUEEN
Ruthless Konta keeps her cool to see off Garcia

The Telegraph is equally level-headed:

POKER-FACED KONTA SHOWS THE STEEL OF A BORN WINNER

“There is an implacable calm about Konta. She likens herself to Jason Bourne...”

The Times keeps everyone’s expectations in check:

KONTA PROVES SHE HAS WEAPONS TO END 40-YEAR WAIT
Briton hopes to follow Virginia Wade

The Sun refuses to overplay Konta’s or Murray’s wins over two second-tier opponents from France:

FRENCH FRIED, NOW WE’VE GOT TWO QUARTER POUNDERS
Jo ‘n’ Andy in final eight

Leave it to The Sun to go the extra mile and stretch the metaphor over to its headline about Rafael Nadal’s loss toe Gilles Muller:

AND NADAL GOES OUT TO LUXEM-BURGER

How does Andy Murray feel about all this attention coming Konta’s way? The always-realistic Muzzard seems to be especially happy for his haters:

As Dan King writes in The Sun: “Andy Murray hailed fellow Brit quarterfinalist Jo Konta and claimed: It’s great for people who don’t like watching me.”

*****

The Guardian reports that, in the confusion of Manic Monday, signals were crossed in Magdalena Rybarikova’s coaching box.

“Loose!” one of Rybarikova’s coaches shouted at her, trying to get her to relax.

His colleague shot him a look: “Lose?” he asked

“No! Loose!”

“Fortunately,” the man who overheard this contretemps, Paul MacInnes, writes, “it was soon agreed that both wanted their player to win.”

*****

Who’s the newest sex symbol in tennis? A 41-year-old Frenchman who sits in a high chair?

“It’s not only the weather that’s been a bit hot this year at SW19,” The Sun asserts. “Honey-voiced umpire Kader Nouni is driving the ladies wild.”

“It’s a wonder his voice doesn’t put the players off,” one female fan wrote to the All England Club. “It’s really sexy and smooth. And I’m 82.”

Sex appeal—tennis-demographic style.

*****

That’s it for the Tuesday papers. Enjoy the women’s quarters, which do, finally, take over the show courts today.

Rafael Nadal wanted to win so badly that he couldn't

Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:08:00 +0000

LONDON—Of the 398 points played between Gilles Muller and Rafael Nadal over four hours and 48 minutes on Monday, there were dozens in the fifth set alone that you could single out as especially brilliant or brave.

There was the high forehand volley winner that Nadal put away—and celebrated with a fist shot toward the sky—to save match point at 4-5. There was the winning backhand pass that Muller reflexed down the line to save break point at 9-9. There was the McEnroe-esque half-volley that Rafa delicately directed for a winner to hold at 9-10. There was the pressure-packed put-away volley winner that Muller knocked off to reach 0-30 in the 18th and final game, which essentially won him the match.

But the point that best represented this agonizing fourth-round epic was a miss. A bad miss. A painful miss. With Muller serving at 12-12, Nadal went up 15-30. The crowd, which had chanted his name between points, grew louder. Muller missed his first serve. Nadal move toward the baseline for the second one. When the ball spun tepidly to his backhand side, he swung ... and hit it into the middle of the net.

Throughout the day, Nadal had squandered countless chances on Muller’s serve; he would convert, in the day’s most important statistic, just two of 16 break points. Now, as he watched his backhand fall into the net, Rafa couldn’t take it anymore. He grabbed his head and nearly fell to his knees.

Muller’s 6-3, 6-4, 3-6, 4-6, 15-13 victory was his second over Nadal at Wimbledon; the first came in 2005, when Rafa was 19. It means that Nadal has now gone six years without making it past the fourth round at a tournament where he once reached the final five straight times.

Of those recent early defeats here, this one was the closest and hardest fought, it came against the most skilled grass-court opponent and it happened a few weeks after Rafa had won his 10th title at Roland Garros. But if you thought these positives would leave Nadal feeling satisfied, or at least philosophical, afterward, think again. The only way to describe him was bitterly disappointed. And he was unwilling to accept any of the rationalizations the press tried to offer.

“When you look back,” a reporter asked, “do you perhaps feel this is a tournament where you had a very good result on grass that you haven’t had in a few years?”

“I lost in the fourth round,” Nadal said, throwing his hands in the air and letting them land heavily on the desk in front of him. “That’s not the result I was expecting. It’s true that I played some good matches, but the same time is true that I didn’t want to lose that match. So is tough to analyze in a positive way right now.

“Yeah, I won matches. I play better than other years, true. At the same time I was ready for important things, so I lost an opportunity.”

Nadal wasn’t in the mood to be charitable to himself, but it should be said that his opponent was one of the most dangerous he could have faced in the round of 16. At 34, Muller may be playing the best tennis of his career. Last month, he won a grass-court title in Holland and reached the semis at Queen’s. He also won a tournament on hard courts early in the year, and even reached a final on clay.

Against Nadal, Muller couldn’t have played much better or smarter tennis. He hit 30 aces and 95 winners, saved 14 of 16 break points and won 59 of 83 points at the net. He never let Nadal get comfortable, even during baseline rallies. And in the fifth set he never cracked, despite immense pressure from Rafa and the crowd. In the end, Muller said he was helped by the fact that he thought the match might be called for darkness.

“In my head I was thinking we have to finish this now or otherwise we’re going to come back tomorrow,” Muller said. “I knew it was going to be maybe another 10, 15 minutes more, maximum.

“I just said to myself, ‘Give it a shot.’”

Nadal had 23 aces, and hit 77 winners against just 17 errors. But his winner-to-error ratio was, if anything, a testament to Wimbledon’s generous scoring judges. Rafa himself admitted that this “probably was not my best match,” and despite his comeback, he never seemed to find a groove for any extended time—he won by scrapping for whatever he could get. The problem, according to Nadal, was that he was always behind. He wasn’t just fighting his opponent; he was fighting the score.

“I had my chance in the beginning,” Rafa said, “Is stupid to say now, but maybe if I had that break at the first set, third or fourth game, maybe we are in a completely different situation. But I didn’t.”

I’m not sure I’ve ever heard Rafa indulge in the kind of second-guessing and wishful thinking that so many of the rest of us do after a loss. He may not have ever heard himself do it, either, considering that he called that kind of talk “stupid.” But that’s how much he wanted this one.

Nadal admitted that he did well to come back, but that his crucial mistake at the end was coming to the net on his first break point at 9-9, the one where Muller passed him. (Personally, I think the mistake wasn’t that he came to the net, but that he hit a crosscourt approach that left half of the court open.)

Barring the French Open that he won in 2017, and the one where he withdrew, in 2016, this is the fifth straight major where Nadal has lost in a five-setter, dating back to the 2015 U.S. Open. (I won’t torture Rafa fans by naming the specific matches.) I said before Wimbledon began that if Rafa could survive an early challenge, the way he did when he used to go deep here, he could go all the way. And judging by his reaction to this defeat—“I was ready for important things”—Rafa felt the same way.

This season has been an excellent one for Nadal by any measure, and maybe in a week he’ll realize that and feel a little less disconsolate about this loss. Still, away from clay, a tiny but crucial difference still remains between the Rafa of his prime years and the Rafa of today. These days he makes stirring comebacks, fires up the crowd, he plays well enough to catch up, but he can’t quite uncork the shot he needs, on the point he needs, to get over the hump and close it out.

Nadal has always won because he wanted it so badly; on Monday, he wanted it so badly that he couldn’t win.

Wimbledon Women's Quarterfinal Preview: Who will make the Final Four?

Mon, 10 Jul 2017 18:54:00 +0000

Venus Williams [10] vs. Jelena Ostapenko [13]

Venus is 37 and Ostapenko is 20, but they’re both doing the same thing: defying their ages. The more relevant numbers are their rankings: Venus is 11th and Ostapenko is 13th. In other words, their first meeting should be a good one. Each likes to let the ball fly, especially on the forehand side. Ostapenko is on a magical ride at the moment, but she’ll be making her Centre Court debut on Tuesday. Venus won’t.

Winner: Williams

Garbiñe Muguruza [14] vs. Svetlana Kuznetsova [7]

On Monday, Muguruza won a contrast in styles with the defensive-minded Angelique Kerber. On Tuesday, she’ll have to turn around and play a fellow slugger like herself. Kuznetsova has played as well as anyone so far at Wimbledon; she hasn’t dropped a set, or been seriously pushed. But based on their past, Muguruza should feel confident: She’s won her last three meetings with Kuznetsova. And she doesn’t want to squander a performance as good as the one she put in against Kerber, does she?

Winner: Muguruza

Johanna Konta [6] vs. Simona Halep [2]

Konta may seem like the upstart in this matchup with the world No. 2, but she’s actually won each of their two previous meetings. Both matches have been tight three-setters, and this would seem poised to be another. Halep has bounced back admirably from heartbreak in Paris; she hasn’t dropped a set at Wimbledon so far. Konta, meanwhile, has risen to the home fans’ hopes by fighting through two very tense matches. All things being equal—which they may or not be on Centre Court—Halep is a slightly better player.

Winner: Halep

CoCo Vandeweghe [24] vs. Magdalena Rybarikova

Vandeweghe has reached her second Wimbledon quarterfinal in three years, without dropping a set. Rybarikova has reached the first Grand Slam quarterfinal of her career after upsetting No. 3 seed Karolina Pliskova. These two played at the French Open last month, and Rybarikova won easily. You would think that Vandeweghe's serve-based power game would give her the advantage on grass, and it probably does. But Rybarikova’s changes of pace and spin work on this surface, too.

Winner: Vandeweghe

Muguruza and Kerber put on a Centre Court-worthy performance on Monday

Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:40:00 +0000

LONDON—It wouldn’t be Manic Monday without a good, old-fashioned court-assignment controversy. With so many stars in action, and only two top-level show courts to put them on, there are always some big names and tantalizing matches exiled to the boondocks at the All England Club.

The most obvious victim this year was the fourth-rounder between the top seed and 2016 runner-up, Angelique Kerber, and the 2015 runner-up, Garbiñe Muguruza. Widely seen as the day’s most competitive, high-profile matchup, it was relegated to an 11:30 A.M. start time on Court 2. Tournament (and TV) officials had obviously chosen Q-Rating over competitive quality. Centre Court featured Venus Williams, Andy Murray and Roger Federer, while Court 1 hosted Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and new British hopeful Johanna Konta.

It’s hard to argue with those names: Federer, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic and Venus have each won Wimbledon at least twice, and they have some of the biggest fan bases in the game. But would ticket holders rather see a potential blowout between Djokovic and 51st-ranked Adrian Mannarino or a potentially close match between Kerber and Muguruza, who played a classic 14-12 tiebreaker when they met here two years ago?

Maybe the only possible answer would have been to schedule four matches, instead of three, on Centre Court and Court 1, and start them at 11:30 instead of 1:00. This would give the women a chance to have four show-court matches, like the men. In Wimbledon’s eyes, of course, it would be a mind-bending change. It took the tournament a century to begin play at 1:00, rather than the more aristocratic 2:00. But it’s one to consider.

Of course, there are worse fates than playing on Court 2 at Wimbledon, and it’s not as if the match wasn’t going to be televised. Which is good, because Muguruza and Kerber put on a TV-worthy, and Centre Court-worthy, show before a packed house. Two years ago, Muguruza lost to Serena Williams in the final here, 6-4, 6-4. Last year, Kerber lost to Serena in the final by similar scores, 7-5, 6-3. With Serena out of the running in 2017, the Spaniard and the German knew that this would be the best chance that either of them would have to sneak the Wimbledon crown onto their head. They also thought that their match would be on a bigger stage, though neither wanted to make a major production out of it.

“Probably I was expecting another court,” said Muguruza. “Of course I was looking at the matches today. Honestly every match is very, very good ... I don’t want to make any problem.”

“To be honest,” Kerber said, “I was really surprised that I was playing on Court No. 2, yes. But yeah, I mean the schedule was out then ... Yeah, still it was a good feeling to be playing on this court as well.”

Kerber and Muguruza came into this match as mirror images in many ways. Each has shown she can win a major title, but each has struggled mightily at other times to live up to that standard. Neither has had a strong 2017, and when they go bad, they can look like they’d rather be anywhere else than on a tennis court. But even if they weren’t on the court they wanted on Monday, they raised their games for the occasion.

The result was a classic contrast in styles, between Muguruza’s pounding aggression and Kerber’s tenacious defense. Muguruza spent the majority of her time standing just inside the baseline, while Kerber dodged the line judges at the back of the court. Their stats were unsurprisingly symmetrical. Muguruza had 55 winners and 50 errors to Kerber’s 27 and 12. Muguruza was 35 of 54 at net; Kerber was 5 of 7. Each won 101 points.

And each showed off what she does best. Muguruza knew that to win she had to hit the toughest shots in the game— the down-the-line forehand and backhand—and she had to hit her targets in the corners, or the ball was going to come back. Kerber knew she had to not just get the ball over the net, but get it back low and force Muguruza, who doesn’t own the world’s softest hands, to make a volley. Games were long, points were fiercely contested and there was nothing between the two players until Kerber’s final backhand clipped the tape and fell back, and Muguruza had a 4-6, 6-4, 6-4 win.

“I know I won it, but I think it was a good match for both of us,” Muguruza said. “You know, we battle out there. Every point we give our best ... As always, I like to take my chances, go for it. That’s what I was doing.”

At the end, Muguruza won not just with offense, but with defense as well. She closed by winning a couple of long rallies where she was forced to move all over the court.

“It was for sure the best match for a long time for me,” Kerber said. “Of course, I’m disappointed that I lost the match, because I was playing really good. At the end, I mean, just one can win, and that was not me today.”

Still, there were two winners of this match in one sense: Together, Muguruza and Kerber showed that a women’s fourth-round match doesn’t need a British player or a five-time Wimbledon champion to merit a spot on tennis’ biggest stage.

Federer vs. Dimitrov, Raonic vs. Zverev & more: Manic Monday Previews

Sun, 09 Jul 2017 15:33:00 +0000

Manic Monday has its pros and cons, according to Rafael Nadal. “Is good,” Rafa said, “because you have a great, for sure, fantastic players playing there. At the same time is bad because you cannot see everybody.”

“Going to be a little bit strange,” he concluded, “but going to be good. For sure, going to be a good show.”

It’s hard to argue with that. While you won’t be able to concentrate on everyone, no other day in tennis is so star-studded, and no other day during the second week of a Slam is so action-packed. This year especially: Thirteen of the 16 seeds in each draw have reached the fourth round. Just look at the lineups: Centre Court will host Venus Williams, Andy Murray and Roger Federer; No. 1 Court will feature Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic; and No. 2 Court will bring us Angelique Kerber vs. Garbiñe Muguruza, Victoria Azarenka vs. Simona Halep, and Milos Raonic vs. Alexander Zverev.

Here’s a look at how it all might play out:

Angelique Kerber [1] vs. Garbiñe Muguruza [14]

The highest-profile women’s fourth-rounder comes at the top of the draw, between Muguruza, the 2015 finalist, and Kerber, the 2016 finalist. Each lost to Serena Williams in those finals, and each must feel, with Serena absent, that this is their chance to win it all. Kerber is the steadier player, but Muguruza has had the head-to-head edge recently—she’s won their last four meetings, including one here in 2015. I’d like to see a repeat of that match’s 14-12 first-set tiebreaker myself. Winner: Muguruza

Agnieszka Radwanska [9] vs. Svetlana Kuznetsova [7]

Radwanska’s best chance at a major title is at Wimbledon, but not when she has to face Kuznetsova. The Russian traditionally has too much power for the Pole; she’s 13-4 against her overall and has won their last three meetings. Winner: Kuznetsova

Tennis Channel discusses former Wimbledon finalist Garbine Muguruza:

Magdalena Rybarikova vs. Petra Martic

Of all the unlikely fourth-round matches, this is the unlikeliest. Rybarikova is ranked 87th and Martic is 135th, and they’ve never played before. Style-wise, though, it could be the match of the day. Winner: Rybarikova

Coco Vandeweghe [24] vs. Caroline Wozniacki [5]

Contrasts in playing styles can still happen, and they don’t get more extreme this one. The power-serving Vandeweghe is all offense, while Wozniacki will be steady and stubborn to the bitter end. Can Vandeweghe make enough balls to win? She hasn’t before; Wozniacki is 2-0 against her. But they’ve never played on grass. Winner: Vandeweghe

The Daily Serve—your all-in-one recap of the day's action—looks back at Day 6 from the All England Club:

Venus Williams [10] vs. Ana Konjuh [27]

A quarterfinalist at the U.S. Open last year, Konjuh has struggled for most of 2016. But she came up with a solid three-set win over Dominika Cibulkova. Is this hard-hitting baseliner ready for the savvy that the 37-year-old Venus will bring to the court? It’s possible. Winner: Konjuh

Jelena Ostapenko [13] vs. Elina Svitolina [4]

The Latvian and the Ukrainian have been two of the most improved players of 2017, but they have yet to face off; Manic Monday seems like an appropriate time. Ostapenko, as we saw in Paris, has the bigger upside, but can she keep swinging for the fences and connecting often enough forever? If not, Svitolina should be ready to take advantage. Winner: Svitolina

French Open champion Jelena Ostapenko came to the Tennis Channel studio at Wimbledon:

Johanna Konta [6] vs. Caroline Garcia [21]

Konta and Garcia have played three completed matches, and the Brit has won two of them. After going 1-5 in her first five appearances here, Konta seems to be getting the knack of the Wimbledon thing. Winner: Konta

Simona Halep [2] vs. Victoria Azarenka

It took a while for Halep to be able to stand up to the more powerful Azarenka. Vika won their first two meetings easily, but Halep fought her off in a three-set classic at the U.S. Open two years ago. I think this is where Azarenka’s run ends; she’s missing a little of her old wallop. Winner: Halep

Want more Monday previews? Listen to the latest TENNIS.com Podcast:

Monday Preview: @EdMcGrogan breaks down all 16 fourth-round matches in an extended Tennis in 10 Podcast.
LISTEN: https://t.co/vIf2GXnfLK pic.twitter.com/aWlz71nRq4
— TENNIS.com (@Tennis) July 9, 2017

Andy Murray [1] vs. Benoit Paire

Murray and Paire’s only meeting happened last year in Monte Carlo. Murray came back to win in three, and later claimed that the victory helped turn his season around. Paire, like Murray’s last opponent, Fabio Fognini, is a mercurial shot-maker, but not normally as dangerous as the Italian. Winner: Murray

Sam Querrey [24] vs. Kevin Anderson

Tall and taller: Querrey is 6’6”, Anderson is 6’8”, and they’re both big-serving baseliners. Their head to head—Querrey leads 7-5—is close, and their records at Wimbledon—12-9 for Querrey, 9-8 for Anderson—are also comparable. Five sets seems like a distinct possibility. Winner: Querrey

An interview with former American great Todd Martin:

Rafael Nadal [4] vs. Gilles Muller [16]

Every six years, the Spaniard and the Luxembourger face off at Wimbledon. In 2005, Muller knocked a 19-year-old Rafa out in the second round; in 2011, Nadal got his revenge in a straight-setter that featured two tiebreakers. Muller is 34 now, but playing some of the best tennis of his career, especially on grass. With his lefty serve, he won’t go easily. Winner: Nadal

Marin Cilic [7] vs. Roberto Bautista Agut [18]

Bautista Agut is coming off one of the best wins of his career, over Kei Nishikori, and he leads his head to head with Cilic 2-1. But Cilic is on the very short list of guys outside the Big 4 who have a chance at the title. Winner: Cilic

Court Report: What you need to know about the All England Club:

Milos Raonic [6] vs. Alexander Zverev [10]

This is one of the best fourth-rounders on the docket. Raonic is last year’s finalist, and Zverev is next year’s star in the making. They’ve played once, on clay in Rome, and Zverev won. But I think Raonic and his serve return the favor on grass. Winner: Raonic

Roger Federer [3] vs. Grigor Dimitrov [13]

We’ve said it before, but at some point the understudy will have to replace the leading man on the stage in at least one performance, right? Is this the show? Dimitrov hasn’t dropped a set, and he nearly made the final here three years ago. But Federer, who leads their head to head 5-0, remains the lead for a reason. Winner: Federer

The Tennis Channel team discusses Grigor Dimitrov's prospects at Wimbledon:

Dominic Thiem [8] vs. Tomas Berdych [11]

Do we go with youth and momentum, or grass-court experience? Thiem is the player of the future, but Berdych has been to a Wimbledon final. They’ve split their two previous matches. Winner: Thiem

Novak Djokovic [2] vs. Adrian Mannarino

Djokovic hasn’t dropped a set: Is he playing well, or has he just had an easy draw? We probably won't know even if he beats the 51st-ranked Mannarino in straights. That’s what he did here last year, and he still lost to Querrey in the next round. Winner: Djokovic