-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Wimbledon 2013 |OT|
- Thread starter Ape Gone Insane
- Start date
- Status
Heh isn't Wimbledon an absurdly hard license to get?
I think the window for Tsonga to do anything has closed. Yeah he almost beat Novak at the French Open, but he doesn't seem capable enough to beat the big guys consistently. Kinda sad that his best result was 5 years ago :/
Note: I say this as a Tsonga fan lol
Exterminieren
Banned
I am absolutely convinced I didn't enjoy the events of the 2012 Olympics as much as I could have because I spent most of it in a foreign country, with no access to BBC montages.
Certinty
Member
Top Spin games are usually released every 2/3 years and 3 years since Top Spin 4 would be next year.
I think Top Spin 4 was announced around 6 months before the game was released as well, so wouldn't surprise me if we had an announcement later this year.
Really hope EA still don't have the exclusive licences to Wimbledon though.
Nice I love some top spin.
Played the hell out of Smash Court Tennis in the ps2 days.
lazybones18
Banned
So, how would you grade Wimbledon 2013 overall?
I'm too biased to objectively grade it. I enjoyed all the underdogs and lipskis (and bartolli, sp?)run.
Exterminieren
Banned
Battersea Power Station
Member
Did you have any internet access? I'm an American living in the US, but I watched the BBC coverage exclusively because it was the best. It was pretty easy with this app Expat Shield? or something like that.
If I could've paid Britain money for direct access I would've.
BigJonsson
Member
Glad Murray won, was hoping he'd win last year when I was on vacation in London during Wimbledon
perfectchaos007
Member
Well congrats to Murray, he earned that title ( This is all your fault Verdasco ).
Hard to believe we're on track yet again to have 4 different major title holders on the mens side for 2013. Of course for that to happen again like in 2012, either Federer, DelPo, Ferrer, or someone else not named Djokovic/Murray/Nadal to win the US Open. We'll find out in September!
Hard to believe we're on track yet again to have 4 different major title holders on the mens side for 2013. Of course for that to happen again like in 2012, either Federer, DelPo, Ferrer, or someone else not named Djokovic/Murray/Nadal to win the US Open. We'll find out in September!
frankie_baby
Member
it was a joke though wouldn't surprise me
At its peak, 17.3M watched it on the telly - a few less than last year's final (that was 18M), but not *that* much - the difference there could well be accounted for by the fantastic weather across the country this weekend.
The share - percentage of the audience watching TV at the time - was a ridiculous 80%. Four out of every five people in the UK watching TV was watching Wimbledon.
The share - percentage of the audience watching TV at the time - was a ridiculous 80%. Four out of every five people in the UK watching TV was watching Wimbledon.
Four out of every five? That's insane.
killer_clank
Member
I wonder what those 20% who weren't watching the tennis were watching. Probably Come Dine With Me repeats.
Men's tennis has been dominated by the 'Big Four' since 2005 when Federer and then Nadal started dominating, with Novak and Murray then joining them to create the four.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Four_(tennis)
The stats are quite scary really - men's tennis has been dominated by those 4 players to an extent probably not seen before. Be it a grand slam or a lesser tournament, they absolutely and utterly dominate the rest of the field to the extent where they win almost 9 in 10 tournaments where they are compete.
To quote Ferrer:
I think the top four, they are better. It's my opinion. But I am trying to win every match. The results, are there, no? I'm not making something up. It's very difficult for me to win a Grand Slam because there are the top four. At this time they are better than the other players.
And Borg
I dont think it has been so exciting, with four great players, for so many years. People always talk about one or two great players, and now weve got four. I cannot see anyone winning Wimbledon apart from those four guys. There's such a big gap between the top four and everyone else.
killer_clank
Member
That's Federer out of the top 4 for the first time in a decade.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Rankings-Home.aspx
90% sure he'll never win another slam.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Rankings-Home.aspx
90% sure he'll never win another slam.
frankie_baby
Member
the weather undoubtably dipped the home viewing figures slightly though i'd imagine the numbers watching on public big screens and in pubs will have more than made up for it
PedroPanache
Member
Sort of incredible and unreal that it finally happened. I've been watching tennis for a long time, and back in the 80's the most you could hope for was a minor victory; a British minnow taking out a seed and maybe advancing to the third round, certainly winning the championship was never on the cards. Next came Tim Henman, a wonderfully talented serve and volley player, who lived for Wimbledon, and he was unfortunate to play in a era where Sampras was at his pomp. It was an era where the mentality of the game had begun to change, the courts were being slowed down to account for the incredible advances in racquet technology and the physical nature of the game.
I remember Henman's QF against Mario Ančić, a game he was expected to win, but he was routinely dispatched in three straight sets. That was the moment that we knew he'd never win Wimbledon, his best chance has come and gone and Federer's supreme reign was in its fledgling stages.
Then came Murray, the dour Scot with the difficult, quiet personality who was judged through the prism of his awkward press interviews; his first memorable match at Wimbledon was against Nalbandian, and I remember thinking he had so much potential, but, at the same time, so little stamina. I've never seen anybody look so absolutely knackered at the end of a five set match, his conditioning was abysmal. But, boy, was he one hell of a talent.
He kept coming back, improving slowly, making further progress, and then he hit a brick wall called Rafa Nadal. He always seemed to be on the same side of the draw, his QF defeat to him was the first realisation that he had to find something more, and that summer he did just, dispatching Nadal in the US Open SF. Still, at Wimbledon Rafa proved to be the unstoppable force preventing him from getting to the final. Like Henman, the SF seemed to be the end of the road for Murray. Then in 2009, there was no Nadal, but, unfortuately there was Andy Roddick, who had something of an indian summer and played the tournament of his life; he didn't win, he certainly should have, but he did get to the final, and he beat Murray to get there. It felt like watching Henman all over again. 2011 proved to be the same story, another SF and another defeat to Nadal.
Towards the end of Henman's peak, you always had the sense that there was just that one player who was just better than him, and eventually Henman could come up against him, usually in the second week, but it would always happen, and it would always be bitterly disappointing. Another year, another champion; Murray's quest had the same sad inevitability about it. Murray, at least, goes one better in 2012 and reaches the final, but like Tim, comes up against the one player who is just that little bit better than him. Some guy called Roger. Apparently, he's already won here a few times before.
4 finals, 4 defeats and just one solitary set for his troubles. I often wonder if not for the Olympics, how much would Murray have dwelt on that Wimbledon defeat, it was if fate had handed this opportunity to finally take that final step. Roger was quickly vanquished in straight sets, it was a euphoric moment I remember celebrating wildly. It wasn't a major, but it was the next best thing, and more importantly, it gave him the confidence to be able to complete with the top 3. In hindsight, the way in which he won was anti-climatic, Federer had little left in the tank after his SF, but that didn't matter, it's what that win represented that was to be of great significance going into the hard court season.
So, now it's the US Open Final, and like any sport where you're heavily invested in a partiuclar team or player, these matches are never particularly enjoyable in the moment; some people can embrace that, I've always found these moments to be tortuous and agonising. That first set tie break proved to be utter torture, as did Murray throwing away commanding position in the second set, only for him to break Djokovic's resolve and take it 7-5 in the end. And then it all wrong. At 2 sets all, I was shattered, it was well into the early hours in the UK, and my only thought was how much of a downer it was going to be to have to sleep on Murray throwing away a 2 set lead to blow a fifth slam final. But, still, it was Murray who wanted it more, and surprisingly, it was Djokovic that ran out of gas in that fifth set. For once, it made for comfortable viewing, Murray always in control, threatening double breaks, and hitting supremely well. His service game for the championship was immaculate, I went to bed, tried to sleep, simply couldn't, the adrenalin from watching a five set epic still flowing through my veins. He'd finally won a major, but, even so, it wasn't Wimbledon. The one slam win that would ultimately define his career a success.
Wimbledon 2013 was a strange tournament, as a massive Nadal fan, I was hoping he'd go deep into the draw, and, at the very least, set up a QF with Federer. I'd been out most of the day, and stopped off at a friends, quickly taking charge of his remote control to check the results. It took a moment to sink in, but there it was in plain text "S. Darcis (Bel) def. R. Nadal (Spa) 7-6 7-6 6-4." Wow, I almost had to keep reading it, because it seemed so unreal, almost preposterous, a few weeks ago, he'd dominated the clay season and won an incredible 8th French Open, and, now, he was out, at the first round, no less. Then there was Federer, which I did manage to watch. It's also strange watching a great champion upset, it feels like it shouldn't ever happen, and at the same time you don't want it to happen and yet you do. It had to happen sometime, and the ruthless nature in which Nadal, Djokovic, Federer and Murray had progressed in slams had to come to an end sometime.
This, of course, opened the way up for Murray. As far as the press was concerned his route to the final was a formality, all the major obstacles had been removed and, like Henman in 2001, if he didn't, at the very least, reach the final, he'd probably never win Wimbledon. Even when two sets down against Verdasco, the match had that feel that somehow Murray would find a way, it's probably way I can describe that he'd finally arrived and earned his place alongside Djokovic, Federer and Nadal, players whom you never really expect them to be upset no matter how dire the situation. Truly great players find a way. That's what Andy did, all the way to the final once again.
I'm not sure how much I remember of the match, but I had so much nervous energy that I couldn't really sit back, lie on the couch and watch the game with a cool drink. After watching some of the first set in 3D (impressive, but I prefer the traditional angled overhead view) I went upstairs and watched the remainder of the match in my room, whilst burning off my nervous energy with various chores. The match had a strange ebb and flow, after that first set it seemed Djokovic started playing his game, pushing Murray back, and eventually breaking him. But he could never make a clean break, consolidating his breaks of serve seemed an almost task, almost as if Murray's and the crowd's sheer force of will wouldn't allow Novak the opportunity to put Murray to the sword and take, at least, one set of tennis. I was absolutely ecstatic at the end of the second set. Even with the specter of the US Open looming large, this somehow felt different.
I've watched some agonising and unbearable moments in sport, but I don't think anything will come close to that final service game when Murray attempted to serve it out. I think we only really, truly enjoy the moment after the fact, the actual event itself, for any invested sports fan, is more an exercise in self torture than anything else really, which, I suppose makes those ecstatic moments of joy all the more rewarding. I can sort of understand those who actually don't like to watch the matches until after the fact. Some of the shot making in that last game was some of the most incredible tennis I've ever seen, in the context of what was at stake. At 40-0 down, Djokovic still wouldn't budge at inch, and just when I was about explode with joy, it all slowly began to go horribly, horribly wrong.
40-15, it's OK, that was the point at which he won the US Open.
40-30; It's still OK, now more than ever, you need that first serve.
40-40; Oh, shit!
40-A; right now, I'm in shock. Djokovic is going to win this game. It'll destroy Murray. It'd destroy anyone with that weight of expectation, only to have it wrenched away from you, from a man that just refuses to know when he's beaten.
40-40; I don't remember the specifics of the points, it's more of a blur really, but I know I was kind of shaking, now crouched with my back leaning against the door, fingers in my ears, almost willing this horrible feeling to go away.
40-A; not only does the horrible feeling not go away, it becomes a sickly, hollow feeling in the pit of my stomach, If memory serves me correctly, the shot was an incredible get from Djokovic off a Murray drop shot, with Djokovic sliding and controlling his racquet to angle a beautiful shot cross court. This is too much.
40-40; To Murray's credit, his will to win is equal to Djokovic's desire not to lose. Somehow he comes up with a little piece of Novaktanite - the overheard smash, which Novak fluffs, Murray wins the point. FUCKKKKK!!!!!!!! This time, surely.
A-40; First serve in, I'm about to scream, so too is a small portion of the crowd who think the ball is going to drop out, it doesn't, of course, why would it? that'd be just too easy. It doesn't matter, Murray makes the return, Djokovic hits the tape, and this time, it doesn't dribble over onto Murray's side. Murray is the Wimbledon. I go fucking mental, and the rest is history.
Cheers, Andy. And thanks to Lendl, I always wanted to you to win your own impossible quest, and win Wimbledon, but I suppose this'll do. Just a little story for you all from the perspective of a 35 year old British tennis fan.
TLDR; Thanks Andy (and Tim) for giving a Brit tennis fan someone to route for for all these years, and, not only that, actually believe that we could have another British Wimbledon champion.
I remember Henman's QF against Mario Ančić, a game he was expected to win, but he was routinely dispatched in three straight sets. That was the moment that we knew he'd never win Wimbledon, his best chance has come and gone and Federer's supreme reign was in its fledgling stages.
Then came Murray, the dour Scot with the difficult, quiet personality who was judged through the prism of his awkward press interviews; his first memorable match at Wimbledon was against Nalbandian, and I remember thinking he had so much potential, but, at the same time, so little stamina. I've never seen anybody look so absolutely knackered at the end of a five set match, his conditioning was abysmal. But, boy, was he one hell of a talent.
He kept coming back, improving slowly, making further progress, and then he hit a brick wall called Rafa Nadal. He always seemed to be on the same side of the draw, his QF defeat to him was the first realisation that he had to find something more, and that summer he did just, dispatching Nadal in the US Open SF. Still, at Wimbledon Rafa proved to be the unstoppable force preventing him from getting to the final. Like Henman, the SF seemed to be the end of the road for Murray. Then in 2009, there was no Nadal, but, unfortuately there was Andy Roddick, who had something of an indian summer and played the tournament of his life; he didn't win, he certainly should have, but he did get to the final, and he beat Murray to get there. It felt like watching Henman all over again. 2011 proved to be the same story, another SF and another defeat to Nadal.
Towards the end of Henman's peak, you always had the sense that there was just that one player who was just better than him, and eventually Henman could come up against him, usually in the second week, but it would always happen, and it would always be bitterly disappointing. Another year, another champion; Murray's quest had the same sad inevitability about it. Murray, at least, goes one better in 2012 and reaches the final, but like Tim, comes up against the one player who is just that little bit better than him. Some guy called Roger. Apparently, he's already won here a few times before.
4 finals, 4 defeats and just one solitary set for his troubles. I often wonder if not for the Olympics, how much would Murray have dwelt on that Wimbledon defeat, it was if fate had handed this opportunity to finally take that final step. Roger was quickly vanquished in straight sets, it was a euphoric moment I remember celebrating wildly. It wasn't a major, but it was the next best thing, and more importantly, it gave him the confidence to be able to complete with the top 3. In hindsight, the way in which he won was anti-climatic, Federer had little left in the tank after his SF, but that didn't matter, it's what that win represented that was to be of great significance going into the hard court season.
So, now it's the US Open Final, and like any sport where you're heavily invested in a partiuclar team or player, these matches are never particularly enjoyable in the moment; some people can embrace that, I've always found these moments to be tortuous and agonising. That first set tie break proved to be utter torture, as did Murray throwing away commanding position in the second set, only for him to break Djokovic's resolve and take it 7-5 in the end. And then it all wrong. At 2 sets all, I was shattered, it was well into the early hours in the UK, and my only thought was how much of a downer it was going to be to have to sleep on Murray throwing away a 2 set lead to blow a fifth slam final. But, still, it was Murray who wanted it more, and surprisingly, it was Djokovic that ran out of gas in that fifth set. For once, it made for comfortable viewing, Murray always in control, threatening double breaks, and hitting supremely well. His service game for the championship was immaculate, I went to bed, tried to sleep, simply couldn't, the adrenalin from watching a five set epic still flowing through my veins. He'd finally won a major, but, even so, it wasn't Wimbledon. The one slam win that would ultimately define his career a success.
Wimbledon 2013 was a strange tournament, as a massive Nadal fan, I was hoping he'd go deep into the draw, and, at the very least, set up a QF with Federer. I'd been out most of the day, and stopped off at a friends, quickly taking charge of his remote control to check the results. It took a moment to sink in, but there it was in plain text "S. Darcis (Bel) def. R. Nadal (Spa) 7-6 7-6 6-4." Wow, I almost had to keep reading it, because it seemed so unreal, almost preposterous, a few weeks ago, he'd dominated the clay season and won an incredible 8th French Open, and, now, he was out, at the first round, no less. Then there was Federer, which I did manage to watch. It's also strange watching a great champion upset, it feels like it shouldn't ever happen, and at the same time you don't want it to happen and yet you do. It had to happen sometime, and the ruthless nature in which Nadal, Djokovic, Federer and Murray had progressed in slams had to come to an end sometime.
This, of course, opened the way up for Murray. As far as the press was concerned his route to the final was a formality, all the major obstacles had been removed and, like Henman in 2001, if he didn't, at the very least, reach the final, he'd probably never win Wimbledon. Even when two sets down against Verdasco, the match had that feel that somehow Murray would find a way, it's probably way I can describe that he'd finally arrived and earned his place alongside Djokovic, Federer and Nadal, players whom you never really expect them to be upset no matter how dire the situation. Truly great players find a way. That's what Andy did, all the way to the final once again.
I'm not sure how much I remember of the match, but I had so much nervous energy that I couldn't really sit back, lie on the couch and watch the game with a cool drink. After watching some of the first set in 3D (impressive, but I prefer the traditional angled overhead view) I went upstairs and watched the remainder of the match in my room, whilst burning off my nervous energy with various chores. The match had a strange ebb and flow, after that first set it seemed Djokovic started playing his game, pushing Murray back, and eventually breaking him. But he could never make a clean break, consolidating his breaks of serve seemed an almost task, almost as if Murray's and the crowd's sheer force of will wouldn't allow Novak the opportunity to put Murray to the sword and take, at least, one set of tennis. I was absolutely ecstatic at the end of the second set. Even with the specter of the US Open looming large, this somehow felt different.
I've watched some agonising and unbearable moments in sport, but I don't think anything will come close to that final service game when Murray attempted to serve it out. I think we only really, truly enjoy the moment after the fact, the actual event itself, for any invested sports fan, is more an exercise in self torture than anything else really, which, I suppose makes those ecstatic moments of joy all the more rewarding. I can sort of understand those who actually don't like to watch the matches until after the fact. Some of the shot making in that last game was some of the most incredible tennis I've ever seen, in the context of what was at stake. At 40-0 down, Djokovic still wouldn't budge at inch, and just when I was about explode with joy, it all slowly began to go horribly, horribly wrong.
40-15, it's OK, that was the point at which he won the US Open.
40-30; It's still OK, now more than ever, you need that first serve.
40-40; Oh, shit!
40-A; right now, I'm in shock. Djokovic is going to win this game. It'll destroy Murray. It'd destroy anyone with that weight of expectation, only to have it wrenched away from you, from a man that just refuses to know when he's beaten.
40-40; I don't remember the specifics of the points, it's more of a blur really, but I know I was kind of shaking, now crouched with my back leaning against the door, fingers in my ears, almost willing this horrible feeling to go away.
40-A; not only does the horrible feeling not go away, it becomes a sickly, hollow feeling in the pit of my stomach, If memory serves me correctly, the shot was an incredible get from Djokovic off a Murray drop shot, with Djokovic sliding and controlling his racquet to angle a beautiful shot cross court. This is too much.
40-40; To Murray's credit, his will to win is equal to Djokovic's desire not to lose. Somehow he comes up with a little piece of Novaktanite - the overheard smash, which Novak fluffs, Murray wins the point. FUCKKKKK!!!!!!!! This time, surely.
A-40; First serve in, I'm about to scream, so too is a small portion of the crowd who think the ball is going to drop out, it doesn't, of course, why would it? that'd be just too easy. It doesn't matter, Murray makes the return, Djokovic hits the tape, and this time, it doesn't dribble over onto Murray's side. Murray is the Wimbledon. I go fucking mental, and the rest is history.
Cheers, Andy. And thanks to Lendl, I always wanted to you to win your own impossible quest, and win Wimbledon, but I suppose this'll do. Just a little story for you all from the perspective of a 35 year old British tennis fan.
TLDR; Thanks Andy (and Tim) for giving a Brit tennis fan someone to route for for all these years, and, not only that, actually believe that we could have another British Wimbledon champion.
2006 actually. Safin won AO 2005. the big 4 won 33 of the last 34 majors, 37 of the last 41 (since Roger won his first Wimbledon in 2003).
Fantastic post mate, I enjoyed reading that.
killer_clank
Member
Great post.
As a little heads up as a capper to this: The Andy Murray documentary that the BBC aired prior to Wimbledon is being shown again in an updated (no surprise there!) form tonight.
I've not actually seen it myself, but an awful lot of people have told me they thought it was really, really good, so I'll try to catch it this time.
I've not actually seen it myself, but an awful lot of people have told me they thought it was really, really good, so I'll try to catch it this time.
Superb post dude!
So Cameron is already pushing for a knighthood for Murray.
I'm normally against people getting knighthood for just doing what their job is but he did do those exhibition matches and other stuff for charity recently as well didn't he? And if Wiggins wins one for the Tour I think finally getting Wimbledon merits one anyway.
Sir Andy Murray. Isn't Federer a Duke? Duke probably outranks Knight.
I'm normally against people getting knighthood for just doing what their job is but he did do those exhibition matches and other stuff for charity recently as well didn't he? And if Wiggins wins one for the Tour I think finally getting Wimbledon merits one anyway.
Sir Andy Murray. Isn't Federer a Duke? Duke probably outranks Knight.
killer_clank
Member
Yeah, he'll definitely get one at the next opportunity, though I'd personally wait until his career is finished - he could easily go on to win a few more.
PedroPanache
Member
Thanks. I think Andy's achievement is remarkable, particularly in the sense that it's a damn tough era to win a slam. If he's had not that slice of luck where he's got to a final where he could be considered the favourite. 7 slam finals - 3 vs. Roger and 4 vs. Novak. These men are machines, and Murray had to become a machine just like them. Lendl was the final piece, the one man he needed to iron those kinks, to rid him of his worst character traits; the berating of his own box, the frustration and inability to put points behind him and shake them off in time for the next point. It used to cost him games and sets, it's why Federer and Djokovic could put him away in straight sets, now they can't. That's down to Lendl.
Also, a shout out to DelPo, a humble and genuine champion who, without injuries, would have been a huge factor in slams these past few years. He had a wonderful Wimbledon tournament and really pushed Novak all the way. Monstrous forehand and an exciting player to watch, I really enjoyed watching him this past fortnight. He'll be a real force this coming hard court season, and I'd love to see him win a slam again.
I think if Roger would get a Dollar for every time somebody said that during the last few years, he would own Wimbledeon by now.
cloud_sleep
Member
Baby's Day Out (1994) was on Channel 4.
Last few years being the key term. Federer's 32 in couple of weeks, he's approaching the point where he simply won't be able to physically compete any-more.
Don't worry he will regain his spot after the US Open, when Nadal announces his retirement
/Tennis-GAF logic
No way, Murray has just overcome the biggest mental hurdle he had. There won't be any more 'But when will he win a slam', or 'Okay but when will he win Wimbledon' or 'Scottish when he loses lololol'.
He's shown he can beat Federer and Djokovic in the big matches that really matter multiple times now, way too much for it to just be a fluke. I don't see why he'd have any problems against Nadal.
I really think with a bit of luck he'll hold the US and maybe even enter Wimbledon next year as No. 1 seed. Federer will be struggling to hold out against Del Potro for No. 4 soon enough (pending DP's fitness), while Murray and Djokovic are locked in a rivalry for No. 1.
nephilimdj
Member
I think Murray will be strong for another year, but wont always have the luxury of playing a tired error full djoker.
I mean he couldnt even ace ugh.
I mean he couldnt even ace ugh.
Definitely.
It must've felt great for Lendl that Murray won Wimbledon, because in a respect he also won it. It was glorious to see.
Haha, ok, you keep believing that.
Some people in this thread, jesus.
iceatcs
Junior Member
Well. Alex Murry is really good at high speed return serve. One of the best. Even he double ace than Janowicz and Djokovic.
travisbickle
Member
Lol, there are two players in your "big three" that aren't in the top 3. Get over it, times change.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
LOL Andy holds two of four slams and has beaten Djokovic in the final at the US and Wimbledon now. This is a fucking bullshit statement from haters who can't stand to see Murray make it at the very top of the game.
Andy should start as the favourite at Flushing Meadows and he has a good shot in Australia as well. His game is so good now, Lendl has transformed him into one of the game's best players and if he can follow up with a few more slams he will go down in history as one of the top players of all time like Lendl was himself even after a slow start of losing 4 slam finals.
I love Fed, but he is on his way down now, I hope he has one more slam in him, but the age of Djok/Andy has started in earnest now and we are going to move to a top two while the rest of the tour adjusts. I hope Delpo makes the jump as well, he is an awesome competitor.
Awesome post !
- Status