Wimbledon 2011

Thought I would start the thread with only a few days to go.

Murray & Nadal in one half of the draw; Federer & Djokovic on the other. I think both Federer & Nadal will be happy with that.

Anyone up for another epic? After last year's 11 hour marathon Isner & Mahut are paired together in the first round.

Will one of the Williams sisters win? If so, what does that say about the state of women's tennis? Why do top female players keep suffering bizarre foot injuries?

Wimbledon Draw announced, Check out Wimbledon 2011 Schedule

Isner/Mahut again. Too funny.

I have the whole week off and I will be able to watch a couple of early matches today & tomorrow before I head to the woods. The courts are so greeen in the early rounds!

I think the Wimbledon officials have a great sense of humor. Isner and Mahut. Again.

Obviously I'd like to see Federer beat Djokovic if they both get that far.

Djokovic crushed Chardy, Roger beat Kukushkin.

Lucky you, lg! I'll try to watch some during the evenings this week.

Nadal looked sharp today. I love watching him play.

The Date-Krumm/ Williams match (from the little I saw) was fantastic - the commentators were calling it the best women's match of the year for certain. Amazing to think that Date-Krumm is 40.

Before the tournament started I thought the order of winning likelihood was - Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray. However the courts are playing so slow, slower than RG, that it seems set up for Nadal - if he can't be blasted off then it's difficult to see how he can be beaten.

Re the men's game - where has all the young talent gone? The youngest man in the top 10 is Djokovic at 24.

>7 Jargoneer: Interesting point on the age of the men's top 10. I had wondered how long it might be before young Milos Raonic joined that group. Really a shame the way he injured himself. He has a ton of potential. Ranked in the 150's before the2011 Australian; up to #25 today.

I hope it's nothing serious.

I wish they wouldn't keep trying to make all the courts play the same. The variety might keep different players winning the slams. I've always wanted Roger to win everything, but as he's almost 30 and reaching the end of his career, I'd like to see it open up some. Except for the French Open, which Roger only won because Nadal lost to Soderling that year, Roger has won on a greater variety of speeded-surfaces than seems to be happening in the last couple of years.

If Wimbledon's slower and the French was faster, what's the big deal about winning them consecutively?

>9 karenmarie: - I would argue that Federer has also benefited from the uniformity of courts - slowing Wimbledon down has also suited him (they changed the grass around 2001), as has speeding clay up.

I can see why they do it - so that Wimbledon wouldn't be dominated by serve and the matches in RG wouldn't drag on for days but that used to be half of the fun.

That's why it's harder to compare players now with players pre-2000 - they actually had to change their game for different surfaces.

What annoys me is when the commentators keeping talking struggling to adapt to grass courts? Why would they struggle? They all play at the baseline anyway.

>8 stellarexplorer: - and there is Del Potro to come back.

I'm amazed as I watch the women's game. Some seeds are falling already. Jankovic and Mattek Sands (who really shouldn't have a seed, IMO) both gone already...

Speaking of Bethanie... What about that Jacket? EW!

Quite the effort by young Harrison. I hope he can finish it!

^ 12- Great effort by Harrison, too bad he didn't get the win, but great match. Despite the weather, yesterday was an amazing day of Tennis- Tsonga vs Dimitriov was fantastic. At the moment, I'm watching Delpo vs Gilles. Hopefully, no slipping and sliding ... or shoe throwing.

^11- HAHA. Bethanie and her Fashion (non) sense? Words will always fail me.

I'm watching this Delpo/Nadal match and I'm so bored. It's the second week and the grass is only worn along the baseline. Nadal is standing 8 feet behind the baseline to receive serve. Grass court tennis is officially dead.

Were any of the matches today good? I couldn't even scope out the Wimbledon website - am in !#$# training all week.

I heard some of the results, which were shocking... happy that Roger won of course.

>14 littlegeek: - it's interesting you say that - I looked at some of the stats and Del Potro actually approached the net more than anyone yesterday - even Nadal was above average, along with Federer. Serve and volley is truly dead but that's what Wimbledon wanted to do, slow the courts down so a great server like Sampras would struggle to dominate again. As I said before I think both Nadal and Federer have benefited from this change - the player who probably should moan about is Roddick. What they need to do is cripple the technology so players like Nadal and Federer (they have the best ones) can't stand at the baseline and crunch forehands away. But it will never happen and watching Del Potro last night we should be afraid because once he's fully fit again he'll be able to blow any player off the court (and yet at the same time it is spectacular seeing a forehand hit at over 100 mph).

>15 karenmarie: - I enjoyed the Nadal - Del Potro match. At least it was well matched, too many of the men's matches involving the main seeds have been one-sided: Djokovic and Federer especially could have dialled their performances in so mediocre has been the opposition.
If anything the women's tournament has been better so far because there have been shocks and a few decent matches. And I think that both Williams being beaten restores some credibility to the women's game (not sure about what the world no.1 failing to make an impact at the GS says though). It looks like Sharapova's tournament to lose now but I wouldn't be surprised if we are looking at a new (much lesser known) Wimbledon champion.

On the women's side, I definitely see a lesser known taking the crown. And the way things have been going, I foresee an unseeded Women's Final. Not sure why...

I agree: We will see a new Wimbledon champion on the women's side. I thought the Serena - Bartoli match made for good theater. Would Bartoli remain mentally tough and continue to hit her shots as the match neared the end? What kind of a run would Serena make? We know she hates to lose and you have to definitively drive a stake through her heart to beat her. Of course a match-tough Serena wins that match, but I was happy for Bartoli. And I enjoy being perplexed by her idiosyncrasies.

I think it's Azarenka's tourney to take.

i thought "manic monday" was fabulous. it is so unusual to have such a full plate of top notch players all in 1 day. I,too, ejoyed the Nadal -Delpo match - what with the injury timeouts, there was a good deal of drama. if Nadal hadn't taken the timeout right before the tiebreak Delpo might have taken the 1st 2 sets.

I am a huge Delpo fan and am hoping he regains his health and form;he's a monster!

Tomic is a fun story-full of promise, interesting game not just dependent on hitting hard.

mardy Fish is also a fun story - i am thinking he can give Nadal a run.

bartoli is out of her mind and it is liking watching some bizarro tennis player from another world but got to give her to for gutsiness and competitiveness.

sharapova seems to be in good form, too.

Federer is Federer, amazing longevity and high level of play, to say the least.

>19 littlegeek: - doesn't Azarenka have a history of grasping defeat from the jaws of victory?

>20 berthirsch: - Bartoli getting the stewards to evict her parents was definitely bizarre.

Sharapova looked good today but any wind seems to dismantle her serve - she most be hoping for rain and the covered roof.

I'm not sure any of the top 4 men are playing that well but such is the lack of depth in the men's game at present that they are head and shoulders above the rest. Everyone knows Tsonga has the talent to beat Federer but no-one actually thinks he has a chance - there is no grit or match nous to with the talent. Tomic-Djokovic is interesting because everyone wants to know if Tomic has the ability to compete with the best - from what I've seen of him he is certainly a smart player, altering his playing style to overcome opponents. Nadal and Murray should win relatively easily - both their opponents have good serves and like to come to the net but lack true quality.

>21 Jargoneer: I wouldn't describe the men's game as lacking depth. The top 100 is deeper now, more full of fine players, than at any other time. It's just that there are a number of guys at the top that are candidates for Best Ever. The very very good players behind them suffer only in comparison.

Guess I'm wrong about an unseeded women's final. One seed will have to play ...

>22 stellarexplorer: - if the top 4 win today it will be the first time since 1968 that the top 4 seeds have made the semis of back-to-back majors. At least 3 of them have made the SF on all the GS for the couple of years - to me that shows a lack of depth. If the rest of the top 20 were that good there would be more defeats, regardless of whether they are the 'best ever' (something else I would dispute - lack of competition (who did Federer actually have to beat before Nadal turned up and grew up, he had 4 years of little competition) and the fact that the differences in the surfaces have been ironed out - everybody can now play on all surfaces because only the colour changes now, not the playing conditions). It's time to bring back wooden racquets with tiny heads - that would be a hoot.

I actually think the women's tournament has been better this year - the matches have been more evenly contested, there have shocks and revelations. etc - and I never thought I would hear myself saying that.

I would just like to add - isn't the top 4 in the men's really a top 2.5: Murray doesn't really deserve to be included with the others, not after 3 pitiful appearances in GS finals, and Djokovic is really only a half since half the time he battles himself more than other players.

If I was really harsh I would say it is really a 1.5 in that whenever Nadal is fit he wins and Federer wins the ones with Nadal isn't fit or is absent.

I just want to see more good tennis - at present you can skip all the men's tournament until the semis and miss nothing of any real consequence.

I'm kind of amused by the comments that the Men's game has no depth.

It seems that for years, I heard people comment that the women's game had no variety. Always a Williams in the final, holding the trophy. That no one could stand up to their relentless play. Now they speak of it being too watered down. Personally, I love the new parity in the women's game. You actually need to pay attention to the tournament to see who wins. Waiting for the quarters or semi's no longer works. Good matches throughout the tournament means people are going to watch more.

I'll be honest, the men's game recently has bored me. Too much baseline to baseline power play with little to no strategy. Wear the opponent out then hit a winner.

The women's game devolved to that for a long time too.

However, more strategy is starting to appear among the women, because they are becoming so evenly matched. A power serve and crushing forehand no longer wins every match. (*cough*serena*cough*venus*cough*) We're starting to see a resurgence of some players as they adjust their game, like Ms. Sharapova. Or we're seeing some players that left when the power game became popular coming back and remaining competitive, like Ms. Clijsters.

OK - I take it all back. That was amazing. Federer losing from 2 sets up - never thought I would see that.

I just saw that on the wimbledon website, jargoneer. I didn't see any of it, don't know what happened after seeing Roger up 3-0 in the first set.

Boo hoo.

Oh well. I'm getting better about dealing with Federer losing.

>28 karenmarie: - Tsonga served really well but if you look at the match stats Federer is better in virtually all areas - the difference was that Federer only created one break point, which he took, in the whole match. That is incredible - interestingly in the previous match one of the BBC commentators thought that Federer's return game was a little off which at the time seemed a strange comment since he broke a number of times.
The thing that really surprised me was that Tsonga won the 5th set - Tsonga's record in 5 sets is poor. Tsonga has ability but has so often disappointed (he lost to Wawrinka at RG from 2-0 and 4-1 in the 3rd) - perhaps he is ready to step now. Djokovic from all accounts was ropey in parts against Tomic (if he wins the SF he is the new no.1 regardless).

Ps - Tsonga may well have given us a glimpse of the future - players with both single and double-handed backhands.

So Djerko gets to #1 if he wins the SF? Even more reason to root hard for Tsonga.

I always liked his game, Let's hope he pulls it together now. I'm actually more interesting in the tourney now that Roger lost and i never thought I'd feel that way.

Blech Djerko. I'd like to see Murray win for a variety of reasons, not in the least ABN and ABD (anybody but Nadal, anybody but Djokovic).

Interesting reaction to Roger's being out, lg. ?

And here's an amusing link: The Wimbledon officials want less grunting. There's a quiz too.... I got 7 out of 10. Grunting at Wimbledon

What is starting to trouble me is Roger's level-headedness in defeat.

" I played well, I enjoyed myself, I'm not discouraged." He sounds ok with losing.

Maybe he needs a little more anger at his fall; a little more disgust at not making a GS semi.

Hmmm.....

Kvitova vs Sharapova for the Ladies final.

>34 gilroy: - I fancy Kvitova for the title - she should have beaten Azarenka in straight sets but her concentration went walkabout in the second. I can't believe Sharapova won in straight sets after serving 13 double faults - Lisicki had her serve broken 6 times despite having one of the, if not the, biggest serve in the women's game.

Meh, I couldn't care less about either final. My tennis fandom is at an all-time low. Seriously.

We'll probably watch the women's final, but I'm not going out of my way for the men's final at all.

>37 karenmarie: That's the way I feel too. If the men's final is still being played when I get up in the morning then I'll catch some of it.

Hoping for a Kvitova win in the other final.

Except for her shrieking (my daughter calls her Shriekapova), I'd like Maria to win simply because she worked hard to come back from the shoulder surgery and kept plugging away when she could have retired on her gazillion dollars worth of endorsements.

I am a late riser, but I will get up early to watch Nadal-Djoker. Why not? I can't imagine missing the Wimbledon final unless it can't be helped. This is history!

I cherish the memories of all those Wimbledon finals past. The earliest I remember watching was 1970 Margaret Court and Newcombe in the Men's. I was 11. I was thrilled to get up for Conners-Rosewall in '74. Etc, etc.

I'll never forget the first moments of Bud Collins' interview with McEnroe immediately after Mac's Fourth of July, 1981 victory over Borg. Said Collins: "Put a feather in your cap and call it MacEnroni!" He got a laugh out of the then-difficult-to-please young MacEnroe.