Good, erm, morning, everyone! I find myself compelled in my restlessness to set down a few choice thoughts, here in the final hours before yet another Wimbledon is set to commence.
We will have to wait until Tuesday for the most exciting first-round match-up on the cards, when- in a development so promotionally fortuitous as to stoke conspiratorial speculation that the draw is rigged- we are to be treated to a rematch of the legendary 11-hour encounter at last year's Wimbledon between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut. Of course, this match also carries with it the potential for a great anticlimax, as neither Isner nor Mahut is a major competitive favorite for the tournament, and a repeat of the kind of epic drama we saw last year seems less than probable.
Andy Murray seems to have had the most promising immediate lead-up to this year's championships, having made an outstanding title run at Queen's Club while Nadal went down meekly against Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, and Federer and Djokovic fell dormant. However, it seems clear that the rather-more-grueling clay-court runs shouldered by the latter three contributed to this turn of events, and I expect we will see them fit and refreshed when they take to the court these next couple days. Djokovic reportedly looked back in fearsome form at a recent grass-court exhibition against Gilles Simon, though it remains to be seen whether the sort of magic that seemed to follow him for six months, up until his fateful meeting with Federer at Roland Garros, will still be there for him in London. This year's draw is particularly fascinating because, in contrast to recent years, wherein one could often easily identify a single cut-and-dried front-runner, there are now multiple players (Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, perhaps even Murray) who can be plausibly construed as favorite to claim the title, as well as several darkhorses (Roddick, Tsonga, Berdych) with the potential to upset the apple cart.
Unfortunately, as seen in my last post (juxtaposed with the subsequent thrashing he suffered at the hands of Murray) I seem to jinx Mr. Roddick whenever I say anything terribly optimistic about his competitive prospects, and so I will keep current speculation on his chances here strictly tentative: though he has not often shown it in recent months, I do believe that Roddick is still capable, given the necessary stroke of inspiration, of repeating everything he did in 2009 that carried him so close to the title. However, as we cannot count on this happening, I will say that a quarterfinal showing would be a solid result for him, and encouraging for those of us who are hoping to see him finish in the world's top 10 for a tenth consecutive season, as well as potentially qualify for a ninth consecutive year-end championships- two goals toward which he is a bit behind schedule at the moment.
I shall now wish you well and take leave of the waking world ever so briefly before rousing myself in anticipation of the joys to come.
Showing posts with label John Isner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Isner. Show all posts
June 20, 2011
July 28, 2010
Atlanta Wrap-up, LA Ramp-up, and Early Thoughts on the US Open
Mardy Fish completed his first career run of back-to-back ATP Tour-level titles Sunday in Atlanta, upsetting top seed Andy Roddick in the semifinals to set up a dramatic 4-6, 6-4, 7-6 title-clinching victory over towering marathon man John Isner. Fish has revitalized his game in recent months, slimming down substantially and performing with renewed belief and self-confidence. Meanwhile, American number one Roddick remains entrenched in the patch of subpar form which has persisted since his return from a two-month post-Miami hiatus; in particular, Roddick's return game has been in the gutter these last couple months, something nowhere better illustrated than in this last defeat, wherein Fish posted a paltry 40% of first serves in, yet Roddick was unable to capitalize with even a single service break. Isner was none too convincing either, narrowly escaping a potential early exit to Gilles Muller and then struggling mightily to edge out Kevin Anderson in the semifinals.
Nevertheless, I remain doubtful of Fish's status as a serious contender at the fourth major of 2010, as it must be pointed out that, spectacular as he may have appeared on a given streak, Fish has never truly delivered in the Grand Slam events, reaching only two quarterfinals in his decade-long professional career, both of which saw him beaten convincingly. As of the present time, I would still rate both Roddick (who, in spite of his lackluster showings of late, is still likely in my estimation to pick up steam as the US Open series progresses, and can generally be relied upon to deliver at the Open) and Isner (admittedly even less accomplished at Slams than Fish is, but through only three years of play) as better prospects to make waves in New York.
In the meantime, the US Open Series has moved to L.A. for the oddly-titled "Farmers Classic," where the fiery Scot Andy Murray enters as top seed, followed by the likes of lanky young American Sam Querrey, likeable Cypriot Marcos Baghdatis, and the talented, unpredictable Latvian upstart Ernests Gulbis. Murray is a former US Open runner-up, and would place within my top five contenders for this year's event. That said, however, Murray has been utterly abysmal in non-Grand Slam tournaments this season; he has reached the Australian Open final and Wimbledon semis, yet failed to win so much as one small tournament all year.
Murray is in line for a potential third-round meeting with the very dangerous Gulbis, in which I would have reservations about forecasting victory. If he should avoid or get past the Latvian, however, it looks like relatively clear sailing to the final, which could represent an intriguing showdown with Querrey.
More to come soon, as I engage in more in-depth US Open speculation, and, introducing you to another of my major sporting interests, chronicle my personal experiences with boxing greats Joe Frazier and George Foreman.
Nevertheless, I remain doubtful of Fish's status as a serious contender at the fourth major of 2010, as it must be pointed out that, spectacular as he may have appeared on a given streak, Fish has never truly delivered in the Grand Slam events, reaching only two quarterfinals in his decade-long professional career, both of which saw him beaten convincingly. As of the present time, I would still rate both Roddick (who, in spite of his lackluster showings of late, is still likely in my estimation to pick up steam as the US Open series progresses, and can generally be relied upon to deliver at the Open) and Isner (admittedly even less accomplished at Slams than Fish is, but through only three years of play) as better prospects to make waves in New York.
In the meantime, the US Open Series has moved to L.A. for the oddly-titled "Farmers Classic," where the fiery Scot Andy Murray enters as top seed, followed by the likes of lanky young American Sam Querrey, likeable Cypriot Marcos Baghdatis, and the talented, unpredictable Latvian upstart Ernests Gulbis. Murray is a former US Open runner-up, and would place within my top five contenders for this year's event. That said, however, Murray has been utterly abysmal in non-Grand Slam tournaments this season; he has reached the Australian Open final and Wimbledon semis, yet failed to win so much as one small tournament all year.
Murray is in line for a potential third-round meeting with the very dangerous Gulbis, in which I would have reservations about forecasting victory. If he should avoid or get past the Latvian, however, it looks like relatively clear sailing to the final, which could represent an intriguing showdown with Querrey.
More to come soon, as I engage in more in-depth US Open speculation, and, introducing you to another of my major sporting interests, chronicle my personal experiences with boxing greats Joe Frazier and George Foreman.
June 27, 2010
An Appetizer Fit to Spoil the Main Course
In several years of closely following Grand Slam tennis tournaments, I have seldom reached the point of true emotional exhaustion prior to the stage at which the titans of the game collide in pitched, high-stakes encounters. The first half of this year's Wimbledon Championships, however, has been a most pointed exception; a week spent arising each morning to immerse myself in ever more gripping, harrowing and historic action, while a treat and a wonderful experience, has repeatedly left me emotionally drained to the point of numbness and fatigue. This being the case, I am thankful for the small eye in this storm of intensity that is afforded by the middle Sunday of Wimbledon, and hope to use it to fully recover my senses and energy for the week to come.
Writing in the wake of the sensation which has reverberated around the world as a result of the aforementioned goings-on, there seems scarcely anything original left to say about them insofar as description or analysis is concerned. Obvious highlights include Roger Federer's narrow aversion of what would have been one of the most tremendous upsets of all time, Rafael Nadal's back-to-back five-set battles, Taylor Dent's new Wimbledon serve-speed record, a rare appearance by the queen of England, and, of course, the historic blood-and-guts war between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut, which hearkened back in spirit to the days of epic bare-knuckle fights such as John L. Sullivan's legendary 75-round victory over Jake Kilrain. The consistent quality of entertainment and groundbreaking historical significance of these Championships has been of such brilliance as to utterly transcend any reasonable expectations.
After such a week, however, I do find myself beginning to wonder whether this year's conclusion might actually come off as something of an anti-climax; what could possibly top what we've already seen? Almost anything short of yet another classic final, supplemented by many engaging twists and turns and subplots on the way there, would summon to mind one of those occasions upon which my family and I would go out to eat at our favorite Mexican-style restaurant. We would be served a delicious helping of tortilla chips and salsa as an appetizer- so delicious, in fact, that I would often find myself disappointed and vaguely indifferent when the actual meal arrived. Here's hoping, then, that whatever magic produced this last week has not worn off. It may mean a few more days spent dragging myself out of bed abnormally early each morning to overload my senses for a few hours as a precursor to a hardy afternoon nap, but in my book, it will be more than worth the trouble.
What do you think? Was this the greatest first week of a Wimbledon event in history? Can and will the second week live up to the first week's standard? Who looks the best bet for winning the title? Has my ongoing obsession with this event reached an embarrassing and unhealthy intensity? Let me know. More to come soon, as I delve into the the remainder of the men's singles draw and discuss my thoughts and hopes regarding competitive prospects for the decisive stages of the tournament.
Writing in the wake of the sensation which has reverberated around the world as a result of the aforementioned goings-on, there seems scarcely anything original left to say about them insofar as description or analysis is concerned. Obvious highlights include Roger Federer's narrow aversion of what would have been one of the most tremendous upsets of all time, Rafael Nadal's back-to-back five-set battles, Taylor Dent's new Wimbledon serve-speed record, a rare appearance by the queen of England, and, of course, the historic blood-and-guts war between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut, which hearkened back in spirit to the days of epic bare-knuckle fights such as John L. Sullivan's legendary 75-round victory over Jake Kilrain. The consistent quality of entertainment and groundbreaking historical significance of these Championships has been of such brilliance as to utterly transcend any reasonable expectations.
After such a week, however, I do find myself beginning to wonder whether this year's conclusion might actually come off as something of an anti-climax; what could possibly top what we've already seen? Almost anything short of yet another classic final, supplemented by many engaging twists and turns and subplots on the way there, would summon to mind one of those occasions upon which my family and I would go out to eat at our favorite Mexican-style restaurant. We would be served a delicious helping of tortilla chips and salsa as an appetizer- so delicious, in fact, that I would often find myself disappointed and vaguely indifferent when the actual meal arrived. Here's hoping, then, that whatever magic produced this last week has not worn off. It may mean a few more days spent dragging myself out of bed abnormally early each morning to overload my senses for a few hours as a precursor to a hardy afternoon nap, but in my book, it will be more than worth the trouble.
What do you think? Was this the greatest first week of a Wimbledon event in history? Can and will the second week live up to the first week's standard? Who looks the best bet for winning the title? Has my ongoing obsession with this event reached an embarrassing and unhealthy intensity? Let me know. More to come soon, as I delve into the the remainder of the men's singles draw and discuss my thoughts and hopes regarding competitive prospects for the decisive stages of the tournament.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
