Thursday 27 June 2013

Andy Murray’s rivals are dropping like flies: has he added the Weird Sisters to his extensive retinue?

When Wimbledon started just three days ago, Andy Murray faced the prospect of meeting Tsonga in the quarters and either Nadal or Federer in the semis – and now the biggest name he’s likely to face before the final is the young Canadian Milos Raonic, whom he beat in straight sets in the last 16 of last year’s US Open on his way to winning the title. Raonic is a pretty good player (he beat Murray at the Japan Open last October) but he’s one of the worst returners of serve at the top of the game and will be no match for Murray over five sets on grass.

I love the way top seeds express either mild regret or a total lack of interest when asked how they feel about rivals being knocked out at an early stage of a slam. These chaps live to win these events, and I’d be surprised if Murray’s reaction on hearing that Tsonga, Federer and Nadal had all bitten the dust wasn’t to leap up and down screaming “YEEEEESSSSSSSSSSS!” and furiously pumping his fists before subsiding into a fit of cackling laughter. Murray can beat Tsonga, but you never know what mood the burly Frenchman’s going to turn up in. As for Federer, he has won Wimbledon seven times – the last time by beating Murray. And as for Nadal, who the hell would want to face the fiercest competitor in the history of the sport in the semi-final of a tournament he’s won twice?

No, Murray will be abso-bloody-lutely delighted!

Mind you, Djokovic awaits him in the final, and the Serbinator looked pretty ominous in his opening match yesterday (but, then, so did Federer). But here’s the thing – Murray is a better grass-court player than Djokovic. He really should win.

If anyone’s wondering why I’m not more cut up about Federer’s defeat – he is, after all, my all-time sporting hero – well, there are a number of reasons for my fairly nonchalant acceptance of his demise at the hands of a little-known Ukrainian:

1. Sergiy Stakhovsky played superbly (he actually reduced me to screaming “Miss one, you bastard!” at the TV on more than one occasion). His second serves, in particular, were astonishingly effective. And when the pressure was really on, he declined to buckle. Fantastic performance: he deserved to win.

2. Federer was beaten by a classic grass court serve-and-volleyer. Honestly, we’d all assumed the breed was extinct. Funny to think that when Federer beat Pete Sampras in the fourth round at Wimbledon in 2001, this was how the Swiss played the game. Two years later, when Federer won the championship for the first time, he did it as a pure base-liner. Tennis needs more serve-and-volleyers, if only to leaven its current diet of ball-tearing 48-stroke baseline rallies.

3. After Federer won last year’s Wimbledon, after a 30-month slam title drought, there was nothing left for him to prove. His record of 17 grand slams was never going to be equalled. Nadal is on 12, and, while he might win a couple more French Opens, I doubt he’ll win another hard-court slam and probably won’t even turn up at Wimbledon again (to quote Ronnie Barker in Porridge, when asked whether he indulged in homosexual activities: "What? With these knees?"). Even safer is the most ridiculous of all Federer’s records – not losing before the quarter-finals in 36 consecutive slams: that means he won at least the first four matches he played in every slam for nine years on the trot, which is utterly inhuman, impossible, ludicrous. The great man has achieved enough. If he wants to keep on playing, that’s great – when he’s on form, he still achieves a sort of platonic ideal of this glorious sport.

4. On a purely selfish note, I will no longer have to sit with my guts roiling praying that Federer is going to be able to beat an opponent playing out of his freaking skull (his five-setter against Benneteau on his way to the Wimbledon title last year was particularly draining). Now that he’s finally lost before the quarter-finals, each match will no longer seem like a matter of life and death to his fans – we can simply enjoy the fact that he’s still playing, and only the terminally deluded among us will expect him to win another slam.

5. This is the first time in nine years that neither Federer or Nadal will still have been in contention as a slam heads into the second week – that feels strangely liberating: it’s time we focussed on the Djokovic-Murray rivalry, which replicates the thrilling struggle between superhuman fitness and ruthless efficiency on one side and true tennis genius on the other (in case there's any doubt, Murray is the genius).

6. I wasn’t looking forward to having to choose between supporting Murray and Federer in the Wimbledon semis. The Olympic final was easy – patriotism and all that – but actually rooting against my hero at Wimbledon might have proved impossible: now I can roar unambiguously for Murray to my heart’s content.

Mind you, given the fate of the three main obstacles to Murray reaching the final, he might end up playing some obscure Estonian qualifier on Sunday week instead of the world No 1. The way things are panning out for the Scot, one might suspect he's recently had an encouter with three old biddies on some blasted heath back home. I’d recommend that Djokovic's team chalk a pentagram on the floor around their employer's bed for the next eleven nights.

16 comments:

  1. I almost stayed home to watch the rest of the match when Federer went down 1-2 (I was taking my usual luxuriously long dinner break...as I do when I'm working in town) but, it didn't look like there was much suspense.

    Usually, for reasons you touched on, I find the men boring but, this match was fun to watch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not much fun for a Federer fan, believe me - it was exquisite torture!

      I know Serena Williams isn't from Dixie, but is there a way you could convince the US authorities to rescind her passport so we wouldn't have to suffer her presence at Wimbledon?

      By the way, Milos Raonic, who I mentioned as the main guy Murray was now due to meet, was defeated unexpectedly this afternoon. Raonic's place will be taken by the Spanish player, Nicolas Almagro, a swarthy-looking chap who struts around like an exceptionally proud hidalgo who'd run you through if you looked at him funny - or a top-flight bull-fighter who prefers to kill the animals with his bare hands. I'd be careful crossing the road if I were him.

      Delete
    2. I figured after she said the girl in Stubenville Oh shouldn't have been drunk when she was ganged rapped would be enough to get her banned from the UK.

      She's a piece of work.

      Murray is the player I root for...don't think we've had any Gooduns over there for quite sometime. There might be some SEC alums though...usually imported from somewhere in South America.

      Delete
    3. I think the reason Serena Williams got away with her outrageous comments here is that the English all think she's utterly horrible anyway.

      American athletes have figured out that there's more money to be made from other sports. For instance, an average professional golfer easily out-earns the best tennis players, and there are a hell of a lot more golfers than tennis prosand they can get through a season without breaking sweat.

      If you're a Murray fan, you'll be pleased to know that the highest-seeded player he was due to meet in the semis - Nicolas Alamgro - got knocked out this afternoon. I'd be surprised if the police didn't decide to investigate.

      Delete
  2. BV and I were at Centre Court to witness this tremendous match.. It can be good to boast...
    x SHBV

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's akin to being present at the the assassination of Julius Caesar.

      Please tell me you're tennis fans and not simply a pair of corporate liggers who spent the afternoon in the champagne tent! That might instantly turn me into a socialist. Mind you, you could save me from such a terrible fate by bunging me some free tickets. The last time I got in thanks to my BBC connection I had to work all day and was traumatised by a close-up view of Billie Jean-King's enormous backside as she climbed the stairs to the press centre immediately ahead of me. I've never really recovered.

      By the way, is BV involved in sticking a roof on No 1 court? I'm intrigued.

      Delete
  3. Centre court roof under his belt, not no. 1. It was a fantastically intense match.
    xx

    ReplyDelete
  4. I note at this time of the year your anti-Scottish sentiments are always temporarily suspended. Why should this be so?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the Scots stopped whining about the English while using English taxes to subsidise their Socialist Republic, and if English MPs were given the same voting rights on matters relating to Scotland as Scottish MPs have when it comes to voting on matters relating to England, I would never express another anti-Scottish sentiment as long as I lived.

      Once the Scots have told Alex Salmond to sling his hook by voting massively to stay in the Union, I'm hoping that their tedious chippiness will evaporate.

      Delete
  5. Sanity will be restored to the sports scene this morning when the British Lions take to the field in Melbourne [you will be relieved to know that the only Scotsman to make the team is on the bench]. Should be a lot of good, clean biffo. Men with big belly-buttons, that's the ticket.

    No males nancying around with white poodles or sporting suspicious pearl-grey blazers. Dame Flora Robson [she was great in "Fire over England"] looked pretty good, but where is the lanky, baby-doll Bolshevik Amazon. She is the only reason that I sometimes tune in. Is she no longer amongst us?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The lanky, baby doll Bolshevik Amazon bit the dust two days ago after doing the splits on an outside court. She then hung around long enough to distract her 22-year old bit of eye-candy, a Bulgarian player called Dimitrov, who also fell over a lot before being beaten on another outside court. The odd thing was that Sharapova got beaten by a woman who screamed even iouder than she did, which is quite a feat. Maybe if they stopped shrieking every time they hit the ball, they'd have enough energy to get the ball back over the net more often.

      Bad luck about the rugby. I watched a bit but couldn't figure out what was going on. Perhaps you could explain to me why players who earn a living from the game don't seem to understand that doing stupid things which give away penalties at key points of the contest isn't particularly sensible. Or am I missing something?

      Delete
  6. The front row give away the majority of the penalties. Their basic mission is to maim and get away with it. They are a closed society like the Ku Klux Klan. Nobody understands them - least of all the legislators. A successful rugby union team is always built on a good front row. As they generally look like Caliban or Quasimodo their team-mates never remonstrate with them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A British Sports Fan4 July 2013 at 03:16

    SDG.As a lock forward of some distinction (one can still recall some of your stories) you must have had a close up view of the shenanigans of the front row.I was an erstwhile team mate of the redoubtable Jeff Probyn and it was always a mystery to me viewing the scrum from the comparative safety of the backs to see how this dimunutive figure could manipulate the set piece to his advantage-probably enormous strength plus a knowledge of Pythagoras.
    I'll be hoping for a Murray win this week end and a Lions victory in Oz which i where I am now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff Probyn. A wonderful player. Another mystery of the front row. You are a lucky guy, British Sports Fan. I was present at Brisbane and Sydney during the 89/90[?] Lions Tour [anyway, the one where Guscott scored a great try and Campese lost the plot]. Having bought the Sky Sports package specifically to watch The Lions and the Ashes I might give the 3rd Lions Test a miss because of hypertension "ishoos".

      Delete
    2. You can come out from behind the sofa now, SDG.

      Delete