Wimbledon round-up: men great, ladies rubbish, Roger and out

Congratulations to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga for coming back from two sets behind again Roger Federer to win their quarter-final match at Wimbledon. It was an astonishing performance.

The last time they met in a Grand Slam, in 2010’s Australian semi-final, Tsonga put in a very lame, rather gutless performance – today, by way of contrast, he wasmagnificent.

It’s the first time His Rogness has lost a Grand Slam match from two sets ahead – and that should tell us (and him) something. Believe it or not, he’s a more rounded tennis player than during those four or five years when he ruled the world – but, as you grow older, you lose the sort of confidence that allows you to fight your way back into matches. Federer started off with a shedload, and he’s not exactly a Cissy-Mary now – but his slam-winning days are over. 

Retired players like McEnroe and Sampras think there’s still a couple of titles left in Roger – but there aren’t. Partly it’s because they don’t want to admit that the game has changed since their day – the talent at the top of the men’s game is even greater than during the Borg-McEnroe-Connors era, and probably on a par with the late 50s, when Hoad, Laver and Rosewall ruled the roost. It’s bad enough having to face the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray on a regular basis, without having to come up against the likes of Tsonga playing out of their skull. Let up for an instant, and you’re stuffed – which is why Federer’s record of reaching 29 Grand Slam quarter-finals in a row is probably even more impressive than his sixteen titles. That’s seven years of never missing a major tournament and always winning your first four matches. That’s paranormal, that is. 

Federer will play the US Open and Australia next January – and then retire. Two years without winning a slam will be enough. You read it here first.

Next prediction: Nadal will win Wimbledon again this year. He isn’t by any means the most talented player tennis has ever seen – but he is, beyond any doubt, the greatest match-player in history (Borg ran him a close second). Cojones the size of watermelons, both of them.

I’ve finally figured out why I love watching certain champions – Federer and Laver – but don’t much enjoy others – Nadal and Sampras, for instance. It’s because the former constantly do (or did) the unexpected, by which I mean the type of shot which has the whole crowd gasping, and former champions laughing with delight. McEnroe was the same – but behaved like such a shit on court, it was impossible to enjoy his genius. Murray has the same sort of non-automated God-given genius, but has a few psychological quirks to sort out if he’s ever to become a true champion. 

Nadal and Djokovic do the expected – but do it bigger, harder and more consistently than anyone else, ever. Nadal, who genuinely seems to be one of nature’s true gentlemen (ever so ‘umble), was once asked to compare his talent to Federer’s: he shrugged and said, “I am no genius”. Sampras was the same - his game was so predictable, watching a webcam of traffic on the M4 would have been more entertaining. Luckily for us tennis fans, Pistol Pete’s relentless serve-and-volley style, which was destroying the game as a spectator sport was eschewed by the next generation, who decided to follow Andre Agassi’s back-of-the-court approach - now that players have started approaching the net again (albeit occasionally) the mixture is just about perfect. 

Men’s tennis is currently enjoying a Golden Age. By contrast, the women’s game is in the doldrums. The only nice thing to say about it is that there appear to be fewer ugly lesbians in the top ranks than there used to be. And the Williams sisters’ deeply tedious reign appears to be approaching its end. Thank God! 

Serena, back after an accident involving severed tendons in her foot and a blood clot on the lung  – both of which she doesn’t half bang on about - was whining about her and Venus being banished to Court 2 for a match apiece, and hinted that the All England Club had it in for them. She began to say something about them winning more titles between them than the top male players – but realised, just in time, that this was, in fact, untrue (unless you count doubles, which is just silly).  

The truth is, of course, that nobody likes the Williams sisters. Serena, in particular, would appear to a bit of a blister. When she hunches over, clenches her fist and screams encouragement to herself, there isn’t a tennis-watcher in England who wouldn’t pay £100 to see her collapse with a back-spasm. Her habit of screaming obscenities at line judges is also rather unendearing. John McEnroe was on the other day complaining that not enough had been made of the Williams’s “journey” from the poverty of the gang-infested Compton area of Los Angeles. Actually, John, we’ve heard it all before so often, we’re tired of it. They started in adversity and did very well. We get it. All we’re interested in now is their on-court behaviour and the quality of their tennis: both variable, to say the least. There was general rejoicing when they both lost on Monday.

Apparently, Wimbledon was so poorly attended yesterday - Ladies Quarter-Finals Day -  that anyone could buy a ticket at the gate without queuing. Why an endless succession of nonentities whose names end in “ova” are being paid the same as the men for spending half the time on court, being generally useless, and not being able to attract decent crowds is a complete mystery. This is becoming a scandal, and something needs to be done.

Anyway, onto the Men’s Semis. I reckon it’ll be Murray v. Nadal, with Nadal winning. I’d love to see Tsonga beat Djokovic – but it’ll be a very short final if he does: even though Djokovic isn’t in top form, he’s still liable to provide Nadal with a stiffer test than Tsonga (only Djokovic has ever beaten Nadal and Federer in the course of the same slam).

Wimbledon – still the greatest sporting event on the planet.