Wimbledon

[stotty]

So much momentum and promise in that first set for the Italian, but the scoreboard read ‘first set Alcaraz’.

I might have to disagree with the above assessment of the first set. Carlos was comfortably better throughout the first set. He placed his serve better, was more assertive, moved better, and he played the big shots at the most opportune moments. Carlos was deadly and Sinner was little like a fish out of water for a while. The opening set was far from promising from Sinner. I was a little worried for him at that point.

Carlos inexplicably lapsed at the start of the second set and never regained himself. The opportunity was given (literally) to Sinner and he took it and then went from strength to strength. In the end, Sinner was finding all the spots with his first serves, and his second serves were pacey and deep. Plus, he started hitting out of the corners like he does on a hard court…amazing.

Todd Woodbridge shared the commentary box with TIm Henman and I found him knowledgeable and engaging. His said a key part of the Sinner’s tactics were to catch Carlos leaning to his left looking for a forehand and then pump a backhand down the line. I have to say Sinner hits one of the best down the line backhands I’ve seen; piercingly accurate.

I watched the YouTube video stroke posted…the guy with the unfortunate, squeaky voice. That was insightful also. That tiebreak Carlos played was something else.

[stroke]

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16pj9ShDzw/

Another great snapshot of what classy looks like

[jimlosaltos]

So much momentum and promise in that first set for the Italian, but the scoreboard read ‘first set Alcaraz’.

I might have to disagree with the above assessment of the first set. Carlos was comfortably better throughout the first set. He placed his serve better, was more assertive, moved better, and he played the big shots at the most opportune moments. Carlos was deadly and Sinner was little like a fish out of water for a while. The opening set was far from promising from Sinner. I was a little worried for him at that point.

Carlos inexplicably lapsed at the start of the second set and never regained himself. The opportunity was given (literally) to Sinner and he took it and then went from strength to strength. In the end, Sinner was finding all the spots with his first serves, and his second serves were pacey and deep. Plus, he started hitting out of the corners like he does on a hard court…amazing.

Todd Woodbridge shared the commentary box with TIm Henman and I found him knowledgeable and engaging. His said a key part of the Sinner’s tactics were to catch Carlos leaning to his left looking for a forehand and then pump a backhand down the line. I have to say Sinner hits one of the best down the line backhands I’ve seen; piercingly accurate.

I watched the YouTube video stroke posted…the guy with the unfortunate, squeaky voice. That was insightful also. That tiebreak Carlos played was something else.

On Woodbridge, you reminded me. Both players practiced specifically to counter their opponent.

“In practice yesterday Alcaraz was practicing the serve, and then getting someone slamming a ball back at him down the centre. He knows what is coming, but in that particular game, the next part was Sinner going hard into the Alcaraz forehand.”
— Todd Woodbridge commentary

I played against one of the best returners on tour, so it [Alcaraz’s serve] was a weapon I wished could be better, but today with the nerves and everything it was difficult to serve better”
— Carlos Alcaraz

Contrast Alcaraz practicing the first shot after the serve with what Sinner emphasized.

From Andrea Petkovic: "Jannik had said that the few days of preparation before Wimbledon were some of the hardest and most important ones he has had this year. ... In an interview me and my colleague Moritz got with Jannik, I high-pressed him like Pep Guardiola’s football teams presses their opponents, so high I could feel Wimbledon’s media people breathing down my neck (GO BIG OR GO HOME) until he finally admitted that the main focus in that preparation had been serving and getting quicker on the court, particularly on his first step. I played my questions as intensely and mercilessly as Iga plays points in Wimbledon finals."

And; "He got to almost every single drop-shot Carlos hit him with and not only did he get there, he also managed to hit it or push it long and close the net afterwards, making the room visually small for Carlos to pass him.

[jimlosaltos]

TV Ratings

Sunday’s men's single match averaged 2.9 million viewers, according to ESPN.
That's a 31% increase over last year’s Djokovic–Alcaraz final and the highest viewership since Federer’s last appearance.

Now, beware of comparing apples with oranges.

Peak Viewership
Sinner alcaraz peaked at 4 million
Djokovic vs Alcaraz 3.20 M
Djokovic vs Federer 3.83 M 2023 & 2019 respectively.

Both the rivalry and the new stars presumably had an impact.

Also, we've had a somewhat unusual opportunity to do A-B tests on Djokovic's Q rating by having the same player meet Djokovic then a substitute.
Similarly, when Medvedev lost to Rafael Nadal in 2021, viewership in Australia was 20% higher than when he lost to Djokovic the prior year.

[stotty]

Woeful figures for a country so big. Allow me to put the US figures to shame:

Jannik Sinner's sensational Wimbledon victory over Carlos Alcaraz in the men's singles final was watched by 8.8 million UK viewers, the BBC revealed.

The BBC also revealed it enjoyed its highest overall audience ever for a Wimbledon championships, with a record-breaking 69.3 million taking in coverage across BBC iPlayer, the BBC Sport website, and BBC Sport app across the two weeks of the championships.

Get out there and promote the game over there, Jim! Something is not right.

[jimlosaltos]

Woeful figures for a country so big. Allow me to put the US figures to shame:

Jannik Sinner's sensational Wimbledon victory over Carlos Alcaraz in the men's singles final was watched by 8.8 million UK viewers, the BBC revealed.

The BBC also revealed it enjoyed its highest overall audience ever for a Wimbledon championships, with a record-breaking 69.3 million taking in coverage across BBC iPlayer, the BBC Sport website, and BBC Sport app across the two weeks of the championships.

Get out there and promote the game over there, Jim! Something is not right.

I humbly bow before your national commitment to tennis


Also, to BST.

[jimlosaltos]

Presumably, Carlos will pay Andy and Novak and join the 80 Win Elite this August crowd in the first week at the US Open. But nothing in tennis is guaranteed.

Carlos Alcaraz currently holds a career Grand Slam record of 77 wins and 13 losses, with 5 Grand Slam titles won. He is a perfect 5-0 in Grand Slam finals, a record matched by Roger Federer as the only men in Open Era history to win all of their first five major finals.

filedata/fetch?id=107956&d=1752706088&type=thumb

#

[jimlosaltos]

Order is restored. After an up and down clay season I was asking whether Sinner's serve had regressed to the mean.
Sinner answered by ascending back to his mean at Wimbledon.

Per the ATP's metric, Sinner is the best returner, the best under pressure and merely the third best server.

Clearly, Darren Cahill needs to stick around since he's got more work to do.

Otherwise, Taylor Fritz served well enough at Wimbledon to pass Gio for top server ranking. The bad news is that serving that well wasn't good enough to beat Carlos Alcaraz.

1 of 3
filedata/fetch?id=107958&d=1752772587&type=thumb x

2 of 3

filedata/fetch?id=107959&d=1752772587&type=thumb

3 of 3

filedata/fetch?id=107960&d=1752772587&type=thumb

#

[glacierguy]

Iga wins 6-0 6-0. It’s a 100 years since a player did that.

One comment I saw online: That’s one drug cheat through. Another could win tomorrow.

It’s a cruel world out there for those who make a misstep.

Two drug cheats winning men's and women's singles at Wimbledon is a new low.

I don't agree with the "nothing to see here" zeitgeist.

[stroke]

Two drug cheats winning men's and women's singles at Wimbledon is a new low.

I don't agree with the "nothing to see here" zeitgeist.

Nick agrees with you, at least in regards to Sinner.

[don_budge]

Two drug cheats winning men's and women's singles at Wimbledon is a new low.

I don't agree with the "nothing to see here" zeitgeist.

Of course you don't agree with "the nothing to see here" zeitgeist. You are a discerning and rational thinker. Intelligent. There are lots of "new low's" going on all around us. One particular peeve of mine is this forum...no fault to the current participants. Ahem. Tennis is becoming a nothing to see endeavor. The two "champions" both being players who have served drug suspensions is a terrible sign. What is worse is this forum not seeing the problem with this and just drumming up useless quotes and statistical analysis of a once beautiful and aesthetic sport. I miss Roger Federer. He was once the "Living Proof" and now he is sadly "The End".

Tennisplayer.net needs a facelift. At the very least. The key to survival is the one who adapts. Not the strongest or the smartest. I nominate Craig Webster. Use RotarySwing, the golf site, as the new prototype. Any questions?

[jimlosaltos]

Along with a social media mini-storm of criticism for British announcer Andrew Castle (I plead ignorance there) John McEnroe's comments are getting their share of rice.

John McEnroe branded as speaking 'nonsense' by Roger Federer's ex-coach including this from Ivan Ljubicic.

McEnroe: “You took a look at them bringing their A-game right now – I’m saying Sinner and Alcaraz against Nadal on clay – you would make a serious argument with both guys that they would be favoured to beat Nadal, at his best,” stated the seven-time Grand Slam champion to TNT Sports.

Ljubicic: “It was a very, very, very good final and the drama was perfect with the match points saved, but people always exaggerate,” the Croatian rebutted.

“John McEnroe said Nadal wouldn’t have stood a chance against these boys. That’s nonsense. We haven’t seen the best of Alcaraz and Sinner yet. They still have a lot of room for improvement.

“But I don’t think they’re ahead just yet. I sometimes watch matches from 2005, 2008, 2012, 2015 [between] Roger and Rafa. That was already incredible tennis.”

[glacierguy]

[don_budge]

American Scottie Scheffler wins the British Open by five shots. An elegant performance by the American. Very classy. Much better than the tennis in England last week.

[jimlosaltos]

Yes, the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled against her because, per them, the dosage was too high to have been inadvertent. Unlike the Halep case, I haven't seen numbers or more details come out. Halep got a top medical advisor to the French government to rule that the testing agency's conclusions were nonsense, but it didn't matter. And, by then, she'd missed a year anyway.

Her case, and Sinner's point out several differences between the drug process and what we think of as "fair" or "Justice" in the legal system.
First, all players are considered guilty until proven innocent and even if proven innocent can still be punished.

Secondly, there is no concept of "double jeopardy" being unethical. That goes back to English common law, and even the Greeks, and was codified in the US with the 5th amendment in 1791. Yet, sports/ drug rules ignore it.

A player can win a case and then, WADA or a tennis organization or other parties can appeal, try them all over again and find them guilty. That happened to Tara Moore but also even though Jannik negotiated a deal, he was forced to negotiate by WADA's appeal seeking a year long suspension, I believe it was. Otherwise, he could have ended up like Halep, suspended indefinitely, seemingly for ever while appealing. A player can have their career effectively ended not by being found guilty but by sitting in limbo. So, the legal idea of a right to a quick and speedy trial is also MIA.

And who is responsible for what? Why is WADA, a testing organization, appealing a ruling? Why did WADA decide unilaterally not to announce overwhelming evidence against the Chinese swimming team?

The whole system is an archaic and bureaucrat mess without due process we see in every Westernized country's legal system.