Tennis

[Dave2002]

The worst kind of scoundrel do you mean?

Are you trying a wind up?

[Lat-Literal]

Federer through to the final - the oldest man to reach a final since Rosewall who the BBC claims was 39 rather than 42 in 1974. His opponent is Cilic who will be a very big test of him as he has been in the past. The Croatian - who came through a period of performance enhance drug allegations - aims to achieve what his compatriot Ivanisevic did after several attempts.

Good luck to Jamie Murray and Heather Watson who are both currently in doubles semi finals.

[Lat-Literal]

Congratulations to Garbine Muguruza for 7-5, 6-0. I'm pleased as I have been backing this one to win for a couple of years now. I felt that she had the game play for grass and the character as long as nerves could be kept in check and it's so refreshing to have a player with a sense of humour. Still, it was the sort of final where it was sad that either had to lose.

Not a classic. Too many unenforced errors and in the end too one sided but some impressive moments from both players along the way. Mr McEnroe looks for half a dozen reasons why it suddenly slipped from Venus Williams. Only one is needed. At 37, she needed to win in straight sets. When the first set was lost, it wasn't the physicality. It was wholly psychological.

Report on the match in the Independent - http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/t...-a7842896.html

GB's Reid and Hewett retain wheelchair doubles title - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/40619467

[Richard Tarleton]

Congratulations to Garbine Muguruza for 7-5, 6-0. I'm pleased as I have been backing this one to win for a couple of years now. I felt that she had the game play for grass and the character as long as nerves could be kept in check and it's so refreshing to have a player with a sense of humour. Still, it was the sort of final where it was sad that either had to lose.

Not a classic. Too many unenforced errors and in the end too one sided but some impressive moments from both players along the way. Mr McEnroe looks for half a dozen reasons why it suddenly slipped from Venus Williams. Only one is needed. At 37, she needed to win in straight sets. When the first set was lost, it wasn't the physicality. It was wholly psychological.

Good call Lat. I like her power game. Nice to see all those Spanish tennis royalty (and actual royalty) congratulating her behind the scenes afterwards. She realised straight away that her (well-meant) remark about watching Venus while she was growing up sounded wrong - Venus looked a bit grumpy at that point - but with Sue Barker's help they got past it. Why do they have those dreadful on-court interviews at the end?

[Lat-Literal]

Good call Lat. I like her power game. Nice to see all those Spanish tennis royalty (and actual royalty) congratulating her behind the scenes afterwards. She realised straight away that her (well-meant) remark about watching Venus while she was growing up sounded wrong - Venus looked a bit grumpy at that point - but with Sue Barker's help they got past it. Why do they have those dreadful on-court interviews at the end?

Thanks RT although I think I spoiled it a bit a few pages back by saying something like it was a hope rather than a prediction. Too cautious. The moment of the interview you mention was a bit odd as I am sure similar sorts of things have been said in the past - for example, young players saying that they had grown up being inspired by Federer. Perhaps it comes across differently with women or it did for some reason with these women. I tend to agree with you about the interviews. They can go wrong but each player made the best of it.

Incidentally, I don't know where I was whenever it was being mentioned but the rosewater dish that has been given to the winners of the women's singles since the 1880s is officially the Venus Rosewater Dish. That, then, must be why Venus Williams was named Venus when she was born? I'm now left with that "stoopid" feeling of everyone knowing apart from me.

As many will know, the mens' doubles final was a four and a half hour epic with the not especially young Kubot and Melo beating Marach and Pavic in the final set 13-11. Scintillating perhaps - it ebbed and flowed - but it was too much of a "powerfest" for my liking. Not enough character. Such was the length of their match it seemed that the womens' doubles final wouldn't start today or if it did that it wouldn't be completed. But Russian duo Makarova and Vesnina were mesmerising in their sense of purpose and dismissed Chinese Taipei's Chan Hao-ching and Romania's Niculescu 6-0, 6-0. While on rare occasions the men did show at least a hint of personality, these two were utterly colourless. It was all stereotypical ultra competitiveness in appearance and approach. Their opponents lost not only because they weren't good enough but they seemed like actual people with whom it would be possible and even pleasant to converse. Chan Hao-ching in particular often smiled, albeit wryly. There was a time when doubles matches, while never less than serious, were all played in that spirit.

[Richard Tarleton]

Incidentally, I don't know where I was whenever it was being mentioned but the rosewater dish that has been given to the winners of the women's singles since the 1880s is officially the Venus Rosewater Dish. That, then, must be why Venus Williams was named Venus when she was born? I'm now left with that "stoopid" feeling of everyone knowing apart from me.

If that's the case I didn't know either

There was a time when doubles matches, while never less than serious, were all played in that spirit.

Ah yes, I remember Osuna and Palafox, Newcombe and Roche, Hewitt and Macmillan (the latter in white cap). I used to know someone who did some line judging at W'don in those days who had a few bust-ups with the fiery Hewitt in those long pre-Hawkeye days - Hewitt since in trouble for other reasons

Mind you men's doubles was hopeless on blurry b&w TV screens, we didn't know any better but I don't think we actually saw very much.

[Lat-Literal]

If that's the case I didn't know either


Ah yes, I remember Osuna and Palafox, Newcombe and Roche, Hewitt and Macmillan (the latter in white cap). I used to know someone who did some line judging at W'don in those days who had a few bust-ups with the fiery Hewitt in those long pre-Hawkeye days - Hewitt since in trouble for other reasons

Mind you men's doubles was hopeless on blurry b&w TV screens, we didn't know any better but I don't think we actually saw very much.

I am reassured by your comment on Venus, RT. Now all we need to do is find the original tennis connection with Serena. I didn't know about Hewitt. Awful. I do remember Hewitt and Macmillan - Hewitt/Hewett seems to be an unusually common name in tennis - and Newcombe and Roche but not Osuna and Palafox. I was trying to think of other pairings - Case and Masters, Gottfried and Ramirez, Amritraj and Amritraj. A little later it was McEnroe and Fleming when it all became "livelier". My favourites in that era were McNamara and McNamee.

We have done well this year with the thread. It was quite breezy in 2015 but there was nothing at all for Wimbledon 2016. One reason is that I had a lot of other matters on my mind. Non tennis fans might wish to note that after today is likely to sink without trace for many months, that is, unless other competitions excite forum members. But first there is the matter of what could be one of the best days at Wimbledon of all time or if not one of the very worse. (t?). Good luck to Roger Federer and also to both J Murray and H Watson in their battle.

I will say one other thing now and it is a little controversial. Not only do I believe that Federer is the greatest men's singles player of all time but I also think he helped rescue the sport. In my humble opinion - and with a few exceptions, it all went very downhill during the 1990s for several reasons. I never expected it would be one of the success stories of the 2000s.

Actually another thing. This tournament which is inextricably linked with the BBC is a wonderful example of this country to the rest of the world and, if anything, it is getting better. The organisation, the rules, the presentation, the unapologetic emphasis on history and the increasing involvement of children with emotional difficulties. All good - and long may it continue.

[Dave2002]

What is the rule about challenged balls in/out? Sometimes the point is replayed, and sometimes the point is awarded. Why the difference?

Just now Federer challenged a point which would have put him in a better position, and won the challenge. Why should he have had to play it again?

I've been wondering about this for quite a while - as whatever rule is in place seems random to me.

[Lat-Literal]

What is the rule about challenged balls in/out? Sometimes the point is replayed, and sometimes the point is awarded. Why the difference?

Just now Federer challenged a point which would have put him in a better position, and won the challenge. Why should he have had to play it again?

I've been wondering about this for quite a while - as whatever rule is in place seems random to me.

I have also been wondering about this matter Dave.

Had similar feelings this year - I always believed the point would be awarded rather than needing to be replayed - and this doesn't make it clear to me:

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/scores/challenge/index.html

If RT or anyone else can help?

Break to Federer after a dodgy start - needs to win the first to avoid doing a Venus.

Done it - 6-3 - that drop shot was pure music.

[Lat-Literal]

6-1. Two sets to love. I think the answer is essentially it depends on how the wrong call affected game play. A bit vague at present but I may have the recall to be more specific later. Still believe that this is the most emotional and cerebral of physical sports. Physios back and forth with Cilic and there may well be a problem but he burst into tears. He was emotionally overwhelmed as Williams was yesterday. One wants to say nastily it's game play but probably not so. He's erratic. I will hold any comments about earlier drug allegations and the impacts on the body. I have zero tolerance in that regard but he seems a nice enough guy. Given the respective ages, this to my mind is almost a battle for tennis as well as everything else. I love finesse plus power beating power. McEnroe had it, Goolagong-Cawley had it, Bueno had it. Sampras didn't have it. That is what is at stake today plus history and justice.

[Lat-Literal]

Twitter and Facebook time.

Whoop, whoop, whoop.

6-3, 6-1, 6-4

Muguruza and Federer.......if only I had been a betting man I would be a "millyonaire" by now.

But I don't care......the principles have come good.

(I'm going to do the entirely unexpected on the basis of that one - I'm supporting Murray over Watson)

[Dave2002]

Great result, great play - but Cilic really did seem to have an injury. I hope we see him again.

Some of his shots were really good. Federer and his pals won't be around for ever.

Really glad for the outcome though.

[Lat-Literal]

Great result, great play - but Cilic really did seem to have an injury. I hope we see him again.

Some of his shots were really good. Federer and his pals won't be around for ever.

Really glad for the outcome though.

Yes he did, Dave but the bee in my bonnet was the Sampras 7. To my way of thinking, 3 or 4 maybe but 7 is ludicrous in historical terms - very little competition at the time - and not representative of ability. We like a wide range of approaches and characters - there have been worse than Cilic and the tears were good. But Federer deserves the record. I will now be looking for the one who combines finesse and politeness among the young. In the meantime, we have a new blueprint for the supposedly old. Take breaks. Not sure why it wasn't ever thought of before but from a British point of view Andy Murray could and probably will learn from the experience. Loved it all - Laver, McEnroe, Austin, Becker, Cash, Henman, Lloyd etc.

The true sporting family!

[Richard Tarleton]

I will hold any comments about earlier drug allegations and the impacts on the body. I have zero tolerance in that regard but he seems a nice enough guy.

According to the Sunday Times, this was based on his "inadvertently ingesting a banned substance bought by his mother as a glucose substitute in a Monte Carlo pharmacy" 4 years ago - if that's the extent of it, it sounds more like carelessness. Unlike...

An anticlimax. I agree about finesse....Borg....

[Lat-Literal]

According to the Sunday Times, this was based on his "inadvertently ingesting a banned substance bought by his mother as a glucose substitute in a Monte Carlo pharmacy" 4 years ago - if that's the extent of it, it sounds more like carelessness. Unlike...

An anticlimax. I agree about finesse....Borg....

Well, full of contradictions, I liked Borg for the extraordinarily organised baseline play. There are certain issues. He comes back to Wimbledon on occasions but not as often as I would like. In my head, when I tried tennis I felt whether I liked it or not that I was more like Connors who is also chalk and cheese and often absent. Angular although what we chatted about was whether we could beat sixteenth women's seed Francoise Durr, light service and all. We were in a fools paradise of course. Not even 10% of a chance. I can't listen to justification on performance enhancing drugs, even where it seems plausible. I close my ears and just say no. I'm the anti Sharapova with a vengeance. I could be persuaded on Cilic but it would take a very long time. Congratulations to Britain's Jordanne Whiley and partner Yui Kamiji for winning the women's wheelchair doubles. Their ability but Britain is ahead of most in these sorts of areas. A lot of Europe is way behind us. I could make political points as they have afflicted both Glastonbury and the early Proms but I won't do so other than by implication.

(I am non-physical - the only game where I've taken on all round sportsmen and been an equal and victorious to their irritation is table tennis - wristy and living mainly in the head)