That Wimbledon result in brief

Wife (to self, who had taped the chunk of the Wimbledon men’s final from the start of the third set): “Do you want to know who won Wimbledon?”

Me: “No.”

Daughter, leaving room: “It was the one with the headband.”

(Federer wears a headband, Roddick wears a cap.)

Revelation of the tournament: Jimmy Connors in the commentary box. So great to see him back. Connors was always one of the best post-match interviewees on the circuit. He had fantastic attitude.

Other thought: compared to Connors’s day, the men now hit the ball a lot harder – but it’s less precise, further from the lines. Connors and McEnroe could put an approach into a space four feet square from the corner, sliding it low, making the pass even harder. Nobody hits Connors’s style of shot anymore – incredibly flat, almost unspun, and guided like laser missiles around the court. By the time he was playing the US Open in 1991, already over 40, his style was a weird throwback, an anomaly. He beat lots of topspin-style players that year, coming back from the dead. “Do you think he’s got the right style to beat players like you?” I asked one of the topspin merchants. He replied, “If it were, then everyone would play it.” True; but if you’re the only person who plays that way..


  1. I loved watching Federer; he’s such a joy (which is so rare for me with a male player) that I don’t care how uncompetitive the match is. He made Roddick and Hewitt look average.

    I wasn’t such a fan of Connors’ commentary. But Wilander at the French Open on Eurosport was absolutely terrific. So I suppose Connors seemed to me less so because of the comparison.

    btw, the Scotsman of the Future, Andrew Murray, won against Carraz at Newport today.


  2. Murray is going to be top 50 within a year, top 10 – likely five – the next one. Talent will out. He made Johansson look quite ordinary for a while at Queen’s.

Comments are closed.