"I think that tennis is only a game. You can lose. You can win. After that? In life, there are much more important things than tennis."
--Rafael Nadal
By Alex P. Vidal
NEW YORK CITY -- I mistook Sloane Stephens for Venus Williams because of her attire the night she ousted Williams in the semifinal.
They were almost identical except for their muscles in the arms and legs--and the way the responded to cheers from the crowd.
Williams, a two-time champin, was the favorite although both are Americans.
And when Stephens bundled out the highly-touted Williams, I thought she would breeze her way to the US Open title.
On Saturday night, Stephens, 24, did pocket the US Open, trouncing Madison Keys in the final, 6-3, 6-0.
By winning the title in a dominant fashion, Stephens also earned her first ever Major title.
UNSEEDED
Although she entered as an unseeded player, Stephens put away Anastasija Sevastova, Julia Goerges, Ashleigh Barty, Dominika Cibulkova, Roberta Vinci, Venus Williams, and Keys en route to the championship at the Artur Ashe Stadium.
Stephens did not walk in the park in the first set of her duel with Keys which was close. Keys held serve on her first two games.
Stephens took the first set, 6-3, scoring a break in the fifth game and then again in the ninth game.
After that, things didn’t open up any for Keys as Stephens held to open the second set, broke Keys, held again, and things weren’t necessarily competitive from there.
Keys lost one break with a double fault in the second set, and though she held on for as long as she could in her final service game, it wasn’t enough.
FEWER
Stephens actually hit fewer winners than Keys overall but only had six unforced errors, significantly less than Keys’ final tally of 30. Stephens had just 10 winners to Keys’ 18 and hit no aces while Keys had three. James Brady observed that Keys didn’t manage a single break in her three attempts though, while Stephens converted on five of 12.
Making her first appearance in a Grand Slam final, Keys, 22, made it to the fInal by whipping Kaia Kanepi in the quarterfinals and then CoCo Vandeweghe in the semifinal. Keys he had made it to the Australian Open semifinals once before, her previous best performance at a Grand Slam.
Stephens, 24, was also making her first appearance in a Grand Slam final. She made it to the final by beating the heavy favorite Williams. Stephens made it past Williams with an incredible third set performance.
Showing posts with label #tennis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #tennis. Show all posts
Sunday, September 10, 2017
Monday, July 17, 2017
Tears made him look like a winner
"When I won in 2003, never in my wildest dreams did I ever think I would win Wimbledon and have my kids seeing me lift the trophy, so this is pretty surreal. And yeah, I was almost shocked in the moment that it all came together so nicely."
--Roger Federer
By Alex P. Vidal
NEW YORK CITY -- In a nation where tears can change allegiance and generate sympathy like the Philippines, Marin Cilic looked like the conqueror rather than the vanquished.
In fact, if Cilic, a Croatian, were Filipino, his countrymen would have cried, "We wuz robbed!" with alarming intensity as some of them would violently parrot each time boxing icon Manny Pacquiao was beaten on points in a square jungle.
Sports' oft-repeated phrase, "the agony of defeat", was best summed up in the most memorable shot of the Wimbledon men's final on July 16 in London when Cilic's Cinderella-like rise ended in a bizarre episode that saw him sobbing into a towel with two medics and the tournament referee crouched at his feet.
Cilic's tears made him look like a winner, in the eyes of many Filipino fans.
BLISTER
Only Cilic knows how much his tears were owing to the pain of a massive blister on his left foot and how much it was being overcome by the significance of the occasion and his inability to rise to it, observes analyst Martha Kelner.
But ironically, it took an outpouring of emotion to reportedly garner some support from a Centre Court crowd wildly in favor of Roger Federer, who at 35, became the oldest men's winner of Wimbledon's modern era.
Federer claimed his 19th Grand Slam title 6-3, 6-1, 6-4, succeeding Arthur Ashe, who was almost 32 when he won in 1976.
The Swiss superstar’s 11th Wimbledon final, and 29th at the majors, will also be remembered for the moving sight of the popular Cilic breaking down in tears after slipping 3-0 behind in the second set.
The seventh seeded and the 2014 US Open champion Croatian, sobbed inconsolably and buried his head in his towel as his title dream slipped away.
RETIREMENT
Historians recall that only one Wimbledon singles final, both in the men’s and the women’s, has ended in a retirement and that was back in 1911 but it seemed another might be on the cards.
Somehow Cilic composed himself enough to continue and was cheered to the rafters by a crowd keen not to be short-changed as the Croatian made his way to serve.
Of all Federer’s 29 slam finals, this was arguably the most one-sided and a second set was sealed as neatly as his on court attire.
Kelner recalls that the last time someone came from two sets behind to win the Wimbledon final was Henri Cochet beating Jean Borotra in 1927. But this match never felt like bestowing such a heroic comeback.
"A 119mph ace from the Cilic to keep the match alive with the faintest of pulses in the third set was cheered raucously. But the title was soon Federer’s and he too produced the waterworks at the sight of his four children being brought into his box," concludes Kelner.
--Roger Federer
By Alex P. Vidal
NEW YORK CITY -- In a nation where tears can change allegiance and generate sympathy like the Philippines, Marin Cilic looked like the conqueror rather than the vanquished.
In fact, if Cilic, a Croatian, were Filipino, his countrymen would have cried, "We wuz robbed!" with alarming intensity as some of them would violently parrot each time boxing icon Manny Pacquiao was beaten on points in a square jungle.
Sports' oft-repeated phrase, "the agony of defeat", was best summed up in the most memorable shot of the Wimbledon men's final on July 16 in London when Cilic's Cinderella-like rise ended in a bizarre episode that saw him sobbing into a towel with two medics and the tournament referee crouched at his feet.
Cilic's tears made him look like a winner, in the eyes of many Filipino fans.
BLISTER
Only Cilic knows how much his tears were owing to the pain of a massive blister on his left foot and how much it was being overcome by the significance of the occasion and his inability to rise to it, observes analyst Martha Kelner.
But ironically, it took an outpouring of emotion to reportedly garner some support from a Centre Court crowd wildly in favor of Roger Federer, who at 35, became the oldest men's winner of Wimbledon's modern era.
Federer claimed his 19th Grand Slam title 6-3, 6-1, 6-4, succeeding Arthur Ashe, who was almost 32 when he won in 1976.
The Swiss superstar’s 11th Wimbledon final, and 29th at the majors, will also be remembered for the moving sight of the popular Cilic breaking down in tears after slipping 3-0 behind in the second set.
The seventh seeded and the 2014 US Open champion Croatian, sobbed inconsolably and buried his head in his towel as his title dream slipped away.
RETIREMENT
Historians recall that only one Wimbledon singles final, both in the men’s and the women’s, has ended in a retirement and that was back in 1911 but it seemed another might be on the cards.
Somehow Cilic composed himself enough to continue and was cheered to the rafters by a crowd keen not to be short-changed as the Croatian made his way to serve.
Of all Federer’s 29 slam finals, this was arguably the most one-sided and a second set was sealed as neatly as his on court attire.
Kelner recalls that the last time someone came from two sets behind to win the Wimbledon final was Henri Cochet beating Jean Borotra in 1927. But this match never felt like bestowing such a heroic comeback.
"A 119mph ace from the Cilic to keep the match alive with the faintest of pulses in the third set was cheered raucously. But the title was soon Federer’s and he too produced the waterworks at the sight of his four children being brought into his box," concludes Kelner.
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
Bonne décision on Maria
"I've been asked a lot lately if tennis is clean or not. I don't know any more how you judge whether a sport is clean. If one in 100 players is doping, in my eyes that isn't a clean sport."
--Andy Murray
By Alex P. Vidal
NEW YORK CITY -- I used to write good articles about Maria Sharapova during her halcyon years.
Aside from her beauty (her golden hair is unique, she reminded me of ABBA's Agnetha Faltskog), the Russian tennis queen was the only player in the world to legitimately give the dreaded Williams sisters--Venus and Serena--plenty of trouble in the clay, hard, and grass courts.
I watched her conquests in the Australian Open and in the Wimbledon where she dominated tennis the way Laila Ali ruled women's super middleweight and light heavyweight boxing.
I also used to chronicle the games of the talented Martina Navratilova, Pam Shivers, Steffi Graf, and Martina Hingis. But none of them can match Sharapova, a combination of beauty, brains, and prowess.
I thought Sharapova was a symbol of tennis rennaisance, the sport's "great white hope" despite the presence of Venus and Serena.
But not anymore when Sharapova self-destructed by taking a banned substance.
DECISION
Thus, we support the decision of French Tennis Federation president Bernard Giudicelli to deny Maria Sharapova the wild card entry in the French Open set on May 28.
Bonne decision, Monsieur Giudicelli.
In a "live" broadcast via Facebook, Giudicelli announced May 16: "I'm very sorry for Maria, very sorry for her fans. They might be disappointed; she might be very disappointed. But it's my responsibility, it's my mission, to protect the game and protect the high standards of the game."
He added: "I read the results of several polls and I could see that about two-thirds were in favor of Maria being granted a wild card. Of course I felt some pressure. We did not want to treat Maria Sharapova differently."
"While there can be a wild card for return from injury, there can't be a wild card for return from doping," Giudicelli explained.
In the first place, Sharapova should not have been allowed to play again after serving a 15-month doping ban.
INSULT
It's a big insult to tennis and to other clean-living tennis stars when Sharapova, the two-time champion at Roland Garros, was given the green signal to the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) last moth after testing positive for the newly banned heart drug meldonium at the Australian Open in January 2016.
The former No. 1-ranked player and one of the world's most recognizable athletes, was given a two-year suspension after testing positive for the banned heart drug meldonium at last year's Australian Open.
Bu the Court of Arbitration for Sport reduced the ban on appeal, ruling she bore "less than significant fault" in the case and she could not "be considered to be an intentional doper."
Sharapova had been taking meldonium for many years, but overlooked announcements by WADA that it added the drug to its banned list on Jan. 1, 2016.
A tournament may grant a wild card to any eligible player.
--Andy Murray
By Alex P. Vidal
NEW YORK CITY -- I used to write good articles about Maria Sharapova during her halcyon years.
Aside from her beauty (her golden hair is unique, she reminded me of ABBA's Agnetha Faltskog), the Russian tennis queen was the only player in the world to legitimately give the dreaded Williams sisters--Venus and Serena--plenty of trouble in the clay, hard, and grass courts.
I watched her conquests in the Australian Open and in the Wimbledon where she dominated tennis the way Laila Ali ruled women's super middleweight and light heavyweight boxing.
I also used to chronicle the games of the talented Martina Navratilova, Pam Shivers, Steffi Graf, and Martina Hingis. But none of them can match Sharapova, a combination of beauty, brains, and prowess.
I thought Sharapova was a symbol of tennis rennaisance, the sport's "great white hope" despite the presence of Venus and Serena.
But not anymore when Sharapova self-destructed by taking a banned substance.
DECISION
Thus, we support the decision of French Tennis Federation president Bernard Giudicelli to deny Maria Sharapova the wild card entry in the French Open set on May 28.
Bonne decision, Monsieur Giudicelli.
In a "live" broadcast via Facebook, Giudicelli announced May 16: "I'm very sorry for Maria, very sorry for her fans. They might be disappointed; she might be very disappointed. But it's my responsibility, it's my mission, to protect the game and protect the high standards of the game."
He added: "I read the results of several polls and I could see that about two-thirds were in favor of Maria being granted a wild card. Of course I felt some pressure. We did not want to treat Maria Sharapova differently."
"While there can be a wild card for return from injury, there can't be a wild card for return from doping," Giudicelli explained.
In the first place, Sharapova should not have been allowed to play again after serving a 15-month doping ban.
INSULT
It's a big insult to tennis and to other clean-living tennis stars when Sharapova, the two-time champion at Roland Garros, was given the green signal to the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) last moth after testing positive for the newly banned heart drug meldonium at the Australian Open in January 2016.
The former No. 1-ranked player and one of the world's most recognizable athletes, was given a two-year suspension after testing positive for the banned heart drug meldonium at last year's Australian Open.
Bu the Court of Arbitration for Sport reduced the ban on appeal, ruling she bore "less than significant fault" in the case and she could not "be considered to be an intentional doper."
Sharapova had been taking meldonium for many years, but overlooked announcements by WADA that it added the drug to its banned list on Jan. 1, 2016.
A tournament may grant a wild card to any eligible player.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)