In between work and graduations I’ve managed to see a fair bit of Wimbledon over the last fortnight. It’s been a pretty good one, while following a pattern that the Slams have been in for the past three years: Alcaraz, Sinner or Djokovik (of which more later) for the mens, while chaos and upsets reign in the womens.
The Brits had a fair showing without the key hopes (Draper and Radecanu) looking like they could go particularly deep. Draper doesn’t appear like someone who plays effortlessly, shall we say, and after going deep in the French and Australians, plus some tour finals, he looked tired. Radecanu is still finding her way back, and in the first couple of rounds showed glimpses of her power. I think the top ten and a tour title are reasonable goals for her the next few years. Norrie and Kartal provided some early entertainment, and the sheer number of Brits in the first few rounds was encouraging.
The women’s draw saw seed after seed tumble, from Gauff and Rybakina to Sabalenka in the semis in which (let’s remember) Ansimova played out of her skin to create enough pressure to force Sabalenka’s jitters to emerge. No question that when she’s on form Sabalenka has the power to beat anyone, but that she does frequently beat herself. That semi was probably the match of the women’s draw. On the other half Iga Swiantek, who spent some time upping her grass game before the tournament, sailed through without too much challenge as the seeds fell before her.
So to that final. After the first three games it was clear that Ansimova was not going to be able to execute any kind of game that would threaten Swiantek. No first serves in, no deep return of serves, no rallying shots to exend the point. The first set was a tough watch, the second grimly fascinating as Ansimova got to 30 on several occasions, even deuce, but could not close a game out. Swiatek you felt was operating at about 75%. One for the record books and I hope Ansimova recovers from this.
On the men’s side we assumed that Alcaraz, Sinner and Djokovic would all progress to the semis. And so it came to pass, with an almighty scare/stroke of luck for Sinner who looked down and out to Dimitrov when Dimitrov pulled his pec on a serve. Though Shelton and Fritz huffed and puffed against Sinner and Alcaraz there was never a feeling that Fritz, one of the ‘lost 90s’ generation, could overcome. Shelton is one of the millennial group who have seized the crown and definitely someone who could – could – win a slam in the future.
Zverev, Fritz, Rublev, Ruud and at the tail end Tsisipas look doomed to spend their careers slamless as the meat in the sandwich between the end of the ‘Big 3’ and the start of the ‘Big 2’. Zverev in particular appears to be going through an existential crisis, when even getting to a final is predetermined to end in failure and somehow pointless.
If 2025 Wimbledon is memorable for one thing, it is that it drew a line under Novak Djokovic’s career at the highest level. Just as Sampras’ defeat to Federer at Wimbledon in 2001 marked the start of a new era in tennis, we are now in the post Dyokovic times. In his semi loss to Sinner he looked a bit lost, unable to bend the game to his will for the first time in years. Completely out-gunned on the baseline he resorted to serve and volley, and appeared resigned long before the end, unable even to summon the tricks and rage which have got him out of holes in the past. Not even a medical time out! No matter what you think about him, he’s changed the men’s game forever – Sinner and Alacaraz spent Sunday sliding all over the grass to reach and defend outrageously wide and deep balls that would have been clean winners fifteen years ago – all a direct result of Djokovik’s impact on the game.
Sunday’s final was billed as a revenge clash following the French Open classic of a month ago. While it burst into life occasionally, in truth it had nothing like the swings in momentum, point by point jeopard,y and quality of the French. Instead interest was in seeing how Sinner had raised his game on grass to a ridiculous level of consistency, from 140 mph serves to crushing forehands and threatening approaches to the net. Could Alcaraz break him down with his creativity and athleticism? Only occasionally, as in the final point of the first set. His first serve dropped, the normally lethal drop shot spluttered and he couldn’t get the better of Sinner on the baseline. Extended conversations with his box betrayed all not being well, and after stealing the first he could do little against Sinner’s focus and power.
They’ve won the last seven Grand Slams between them. All sport needs rivalries, and this one looks like it could be every bit the equal of Borg/McEnroe or Federer/Nadal/Djokovic.
Aside from the matches 2025 saw the replacement of line judges with hawkeye – exactly as already happens in Australia and the US. Cue much huffing and puffing, including someone turning it off and on again at the wrong moment on several occasions. Me I’m just a bit disconcerted that they appear to have a range of voices that appear out of nowhere to shout ‘fault’.
@moseleymoles, I bow in admiration to your obvious knowledge of and love for the game.
As somebody with only a passing interest, I watched the men’s final just to see what the fuss is about. I was pleased Sinner won, partly because he seems like a nice guy (that’s how deep my tennis knowledge goes), but I have a couple of other thoughts.
First, it’s good to see new winners, rather than, say, Djokovic winning yet again. I have this silly notion that once you have claimed a title, say, five times and/or earned more money than a normal person could spend in a lifetime, you cannot enter a contest again, in order to give somebody else a chance. It must be sickening to be a young competitor at the top of your game, thinking “This is my year”, only to come up against a former champ who wipes the floor with you and goes on to add another cup to their already stuffed trophy cabinet.
Admittedly, I haven’t thought this through much, I know this is how all sport has always worked, and I’m just throwing a bit of theoretical fluff into the ether, but new names on a cup have to be a good thing, right?
Secondly, if Andrew Castle has to be the BBC’s commentator for the big match, can whoever works alongside him be given a gag, so that whenever he starts wittering on about absolutely nothing, as he inevitably does, they can lean over and silence him? AC, tell us about some technical thing or some tactic we might not otherwise understand, and then SHUT UP. Thank you.
I agree on the zombie perma champ, lumbering back every year. I was supporting Sinner purely because he knocked Djokovic out, but you can bet he’ll be back next year, and probably the year after that. OK, fair play to Djoko, he’s earned it etc but I never need to see him play again.
I also agree the OP is excellent.
I have never understood the disdain many people appear to have for Djokovic. I’m aware of his anti-vaccine statements, and he is frequently blunt and to-the-point in his interviews, which some might conceivably equate with rudeness, but the man has been an absolute winning machine and for that alone he deserves admiration. Indeed, it is only the fact that his career bisected those of Federer and Nadal that stopped him from winning everything every year. I don’t know, this dislike of regular success seems to be particularly British trait, we appear to want our sporting heroes to have a “personality” rather than be consistently successful. We almost expect them to fail, but are satisfied if they do so with a smile and a laugh. Murray always was criticised for being dour, self- absorbed and unengaging, even when he was quite evidently the best player we had produced in over 70 years.
Nope. I am just bored with everyone plays everyone and then he wins. Why bother having tournaments? Just give him the trophy and we can clear the TV schedule.
This might have something to do with it.
https://globalvoices.org/2021/09/28/socializing-with-extremists-and-hoaxers-tennis-star-novak-djokovics-controversial-visit-to-bosnia/
I doubt it. The world outside of Serbia and Croatia has always struggled to understand the sentiments and beliefs that fueled that bloody conflict, and consequently care little about it. And Djokovic was unpopular long before COVID happened.
To quote that article: “Sadly, as things stand now, his embrace of conspiracy theories, revisionist history, quack medicine and his habit of socializing with Serb extremists undermine his positive efforts.”
The horror at Srebrenica was years before COVID. Some of those responsible are the same thugs he now rub shoulders with.
“The world outside of Serbia and Croatia has always struggled to understand the sentiments and beliefs that fueled that bloody conflict”
I wouldn’t argue with that, but most people are smart enough to realise that hobnobbing with war criminals and extremists is unlikely to win them many friends.
Well you could say the same of all of the big 3. They were pretty evenly divided except he was still competitive for a couple of years longer. You could say Murray is the most unlucky to have a stellar career while competing with the best 3 players of all time. @Slug
Thing is, these tournaments are supposed to be about the best player winning the trophy/prize.
So if the best player proves to still be the one who showed themselves to be best last year. And the year before. And the year before that …
Regarding the old-guard. Alcaraz won in 2023. He hadn’t even been born when there was a man’s singles champ who wasn’t Murray, Djokovic, Federer or Nadal.
And Andrew Castle is indeed the most tedious man in commentary.
The two Wimbledon champions, Sinner and Swiatek, have served bans for failing a drugs test. Their victories are somewhat tainted I feel.
It’s tricky isn’t it, a trace of something in a medication your coach gave you? Is there any suggestion these are fake athletes à la famous cases we all know?
Also, Sinner dodged a bullet against Dimitrov. He was two sets to love down and hadn’t got the measure of him when Dimitrov tore his serving pectoral and retired.
Mum, is that you? Mum?
Just as some folk find it hard to credit certain musicians with any value due to poor choices made in their past, and even in the face of his undoubted technical prowess, I cannot get past the fact that Mr Djokovic has some particularly nasty pals back in Serbia.
Yes indeed, and some particularly unsavoury nationalistic views.
I agree that there’s lots to question about Sinner and Swiatek. I guess it shows just how elite athletes exist on a smorgesbord of pills, lotions and supplements. Swiatek served a one-month ban, but Sinner’s longer ban was more controversial due to its convenient timing between slams, and the suspicion a Man City-esque team of lawyers had enabled a more lenient sentence than others might have got. What is has done is cemented that Sinner’s role (outside of Italy) is to the be the bad guy to Alcaraz’s housewives favourite, as darling Roger was to Nadal. Who would you rather your daughter dated being the time-honoured acid test. Why can’t that Spaniard with the grunt and the tics just let Roger win all the time? Alcaraz shows his emotions on the surface, and has an outrageously attractive game to watch, compared with the more robotic Sinner. I don’t cheer for either, but it makes the future narrative even more compelling.
Enjoyed the tournament overall – got prematurely excited about having loads of Brits getting through the first round or two but then the inevitable wipe out happened. Fingers crossed that Radacany can have some injury free time – she is clearly a class above the rest of the UK ladies but a liability fitness wise. Draper looks the real deal but seems too intense – needs to try and find a bit of Carlos’s boyish enthusiasm. Speaking of which the raw power and speed of the men’s final was frightening at times. Sinner wanted it more on the day but who would best against those 2 contesting most major finals over the next few years. The downside for me apart from Andrew smarmy git Castle, was Dimitrivs retirement when 2 sets up against Sinner – im pretty sure he would have won that. Like many mercurial sportsmen he wasted his talent in the early years and now probably too old to realistically challenge for the big titles.
I’ve become jaded watching some of the big servers in the men’s game making for some unwatchable contests. That said, there has been some highly watchable tennis this time. Alex de Minaur v Djokovic was fantastic in spite of the Aussie losing the last five games after having break points for a 5-1 lead.
I think it was a good, but not great, tournament. The hot weather usually favours the big servers, but it seems that the courts were playing very differently this year & lots of the seeds exited early – Medvedev said he was thinking of following Caspar Ruud’s example & skipping the whole grass season.
The women’s game was unpredictable as ever, but it was good to see Emma Raducanu have a great match with Sabalenka & remind casual viewers how well she can play.
Sabalenka showed once again that she can be flaky when hitting the ball hard doesn’t work – she was outgunned by Anasinova in a great semi final (let’s forget about the final)
For the men’s last 4, you had the 2 current star players, the elder statesman (who’s reached the semi final of all 3 majors this year) and the form player on grass.
The men’s final had some good play, but not a classic – TNT has a “watch along” with Kyrgios, Dan Evans, and CoCo Vandeweghe sitting on a sofa & joking as they followed the match. It was great fun, though you probably wouldn’t want it for every match, but it spared me from Andrew Castle.
Looking at the rankings: 6 out of the top 10 men are aged 22 or 23, which must be the youngest for many years, while the 3 top UK women (Boulder, Kartal & Raducanu) are very closely ranked & should push each other on over the rest of the year.
Let’s see what the US Open brings!
Medvedev is a really interesting part of the ‘sandwich generation’ – along with Dominic Thiem the only one to notch a slam, beating Djokovic in the final of the US in 2021. But unable to kick on, even if he then lost 2 other slam finals. Would fancy him for another semi, even final if the draw favours him, on hard courts, but hard to see him winning another.
I don’t understand the Andrew Castle criticism. Personally if I’m not told who is in the Royal Box every 4 minutes the whole tournament is ruined.
Also zooming in on the player’s team before and after every halfway important point gets old fast. I find the BBC coverage to be almost unwatchable. Just show the players on the court 90% of the time.
The absolute obsession with winning has tainted pretty much all commercial sport. The vast sums of money swirling around at the top levels exacerbate it by encouragement, but aren’t of themselves the cause. The obsession is already embedded in those individuals.
Of course it’s good to be the best in your field of endeavour, but to base your entire being around that is a little bit sick, to my mind.
Football has just gone to the dogs since we let ruffians play it.
Those ruffians should have just stuck to Rugby.