It sure is a busy time in London. Well, it's always busy there, but it seems busier than usual right now. The Yankees-Red Sox series at Olympic Stadium just ended, and now it's time for an annual London tradition--Wimbledon. Thankfully today's game was on ESPN (which also has Wimbledon rights) because I almost completely forgot it was time. And, if I didn't already have enough reasons to be completely jealous of A-Rod's life, he sticking around London for the sole reason of attending Wimbledon.
Anyway, Clay Boy did some whining after the seeds were announced and he was No. 3 despite being ranked No. 2. That's because Wimbledon uses a seeding formula and doesn't just go down the rankings. They take the top 32 players, then determine their grass court points and adjust their seeding based on that. Since Roger's good on grass and won Wimbledon two years ago, while Clay Boy rarely plays any grass court tournaments other than Wimbledon, that was enough for them to have their seeds flipped. (And, for the record, their seeds were flipped last year, too.)
One of the articles I read on this topic said that being No. 3 means you would potentially have to play both of the others to win the title, but that argument makes no sense since the same possibility exists for either No. 1 or No. 2 (whichever draws No. 3 in the semi). And Federer wasn't the only player to benefit either. Last year's finalist Kevin Anderson is ranked eighth and was seeded No. 4, dropping Dominic Thiem to No. 5 (which actually is significant since it means you could play one of the Big Three in the quarters instead of the semis).
Speaking of Kevin Anderson, he and John Isner played a match that will forever be a part of Wimbledon history. Their six-hour semifinal last year, which Anderson won 26-24 in the fifth, can never happen again. It wasn't the only reason, but that match got the powers that be at Wimbledon to finally implement a final set tiebreak (leaving the French Open as the only holdout). It won't be right away at 6-6. They'll let you play it out for a while. But if the score gets to 12-12, it goes to a tiebreak. So, no more John Isner Wimbledon marathons. (Although, that semifinal Friday/Saturday was one outstanding day of tennis.)
I'm interested to see what kind of an impact, if any, that has on the big servers. Frankly, I don't see it making that much of a difference. Had the rule been in effect last year, Anderson-Isner is the only match that would've gone to the 12-12 tiebreaker (two other matches were decided 13-11 in the fifth, one game away from the tiebreak, including Anderson's quarterfinal win over Federer). And I know everyone will welcome the change. Because the tiebreak means shorter matches, which means the winner will be fresher for their next match.
Is any of that ultimately going to matter though? The same four guys have won Wimbledon every year since 2003, and there's no reason not to think they won't extend it to 17 straight years. Murray's semi-retired (although it's great to see him playing doubles here). But the other three are all in form and looking to add another Grand Slam title to their ridiculous resumes.
Roger won his eighth Wimbledon two years ago and knows this might be his last best chance for Grand Slam title No. 21. Grass is his best surface and Wimbledon is his favorite tournament. With his career winding down, his number of remaining appearances at the All-England Club is also dwindling. He hadn't played the French Open since 2015, so we'll see if playing those extra matches (on clay) before Wimbledon for the first time in four years took any sort of a toll on his body. My guess is probably not.
If I had to pick a favorite, though, it would be the world No. 1. Last year, Djokovic was coming back from an injury and entered Wimbledon ranked 21st (and seeded 12th). Then he won the title, showed us all he was fine and went back to being Novak Djokovic. One year later, he's back at No. 1 and was two French Open wins away from a second Nole Slam. So, yeah, he's the favorite. And he should be.
So that's my pick. Djokovic has beaten Federer in the Wimbledon final twice (2014-15). Make that three times.
On the women's side, like pretty much every other Grand Slam tournament over the past two years, it's wide open. Although, a Williams sister is probably a good bet. This marks the 20th year since Venus won her first title in 2000, and at least one of them has been in the final 15 times in that span. And this has always been Serena's best tournament, so you'd have to consider her one of the favorites. If not THE favorite.
Except Serena's got a difficult draw. In the fourth round, she'll have to face either Angelique Kerber, who beat her in the final last year, or Maria Sharapova, who she beats all the time but can still give her a match. Then in the quarters, it would be French Open champ and new world No. 1 Ash Barty, with two-time champ Petra Kvitova awaiting the winner in the semis.
The bottom half of the women's draw, where Venus resides, seems a lot more wide open. I'm still waiting for that Grand Slam breakthrough from both Karolina Pliskova and Elina Svitolina. As fate would have it, they'd play each other in the semifinals (assuming they make it that far), so maybe this is where we'll finally see that breakthrough.
This is also Naomi Osaka's first trip to Wimbledon as a Grand Slam champion, and I'm curious to see how she plays. She's the reigning champion at both the US Open and Australian Open, so you'd think her style, especially her big serve, would play well at Wimbledon. I actually really like Osaka's chances. Although, she could face either Venus, Madison Keys or Vika Azarenka in the quarters, which could definitely be a challenge.
Ultimately, though, I've gotta stick with a player who has a proven track record at Wimbledon. I think Kvitova beats Serena in one semi and Svitolina beats Keys in the other. And Petra Kvitova tops Elina Svitolina in the final for her third Wimbledon title.
No comments:
Post a Comment