TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
If this is a repeat of the '05 open with that guy, that guy, then this is gonna suck.
Muller upset Roddick in the 1st round of the US Open in '05 only to get knocked out easily in R2. Considering he played an extra set and a half today it's likely.
And I should've posted yesterday; Konta continues to bring it. I don't need every match she plays to be a nail-biting epic, but hey, if she's ultimately winning them, I'm good!
When it gets tough it tends to bring out the best in her. But I do wonder if that means she's making it a tad harder for herself than it needs to be.
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Murray and Djokovic are both out so I don't care who wins anymore, would prefer to see Berdych get a slam but Querry winning would be nice just for American tennis morale, especially if Venus can win it too.
I'm unashamedly hoping for Federer and Konta to win. If not Federer then I'm right behind Querrey (if they both end up in the final I'm happy either way); if not Konta, then actually I'll be happy whoever else wins the ladies' side, that last four is awesome whichever way you slice it. Actually so's the men's, I've got nothing against Berdych or Cilic either.
Murray is an outspoken proponent for equal prize money between the women's and men's tournaments, but this was off the cuff immediately shutting down casual sexism. It's a great example of how to not just shrug this stuff off, instead correct it and stare down the chucklers.
+9
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
I don't know, that seems a bit of an overreaction. Murray's channeling his usual gamesmanship pouting sads on someone who likely just slipped up. You could have just as easily mentioned the Bryan Brothers who, excluding this year, consistently go deep at Wimbledon and last won in 2014. It's assumed because he's talking to a men's singles player about the match it's a question relating to men's singles tennis.
Like most people who cover tennis the reporter doesn't know his stuff outside of generic talking points, but at least let the guy finish his sentence and go "well Venus and Serena show up all the time in the semis and they're American, so (ramble about a question you don't care about)"
It's not the first time Murray has done it, and he's entirely right to do it. Women's tennis gets kicked around all the damn time and for reporters actually covering the sport to talk as if it doesn't exist is something I am fine with a player correcting.
When he won Wimbledon for the first time more than one person said it was the first British winner for seventy years or something, conveniently forgetting Virginia Wade. He was interviewed about being the first tennis player to win two gold medals, which made him raise an eyebrow and say ahem what about the Williams sisters?
Women's semi-finals were never in doubt once they started, really, finals are:
Venus vs. Muguruza
At least Muguruza has won a slam so it shouldn't be the usual yips that happen
Given how Venus and Muguruza both played we should be in for a good final. Sad to see Konta out, wouldn't mind seeing Muguruza take it, but I'll happily be cheering on Venus.
It's weird, some people are like "Oh, this is such a disappointment, Federer won, but it wasn't against Nadal or Djokovic or Murray, so this one doesn't mean nearly so much." I mean, he beat the guys currently ranked 6, 7, 11 and 13 to do it. It's not like he beat scrubs off of the street! We've just been in such a weird place in tennis for the last decade, where Federer/Nadal/Djokovic and sometimes Murray are just so much better than the average player that they've distorted perceptions of what's good and what's not.
Shadowhope on
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
I'm very happy to see Federer win; I posted a few days ago I was hoping he would. It was another match where "straight sets" doesn't tell the whole story. I haven't seen yet exactly what was up with Cilic but he certainly can be proud of how he played; he looked to me as Muguruza did two years ago insofar as he looked like someone who will come back and win it at some point in the future.
He may not have faced any of the others of the big four this time, but you're quite right, Federer didn't just stroll to victory. He played his heart out the whole tournament and you could see it, and how much it meant to him. And he was typically gracious with how he spoke to Cilic afterwards.
It's weird, some people are like "Oh, this is such a disappointment, Federer won, but it wasn't against Nadal or Djokovic or Murray, so this one doesn't mean nearly so much. I mean, he beat the guys currently ranked 6, 7, 11 and 13 to do it. It's not like he beat scrubs off of the street! We've just been in such a weird place in tennis for the last decade, where Federer/Nadal/Djokovic and sometimes Murray are just so much better than the average player that they've distorted perceptions of what's good and what's not.
I've never bought that argument in an elimination tournament fashion. You don't make the Final of Wimbledon if you aren't one of the best tennis players in the world.
+2
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Federers serve and backhand was spot on today but Cilic looked Like he had no gameplan. Reminded me too much of Roddick in '05 trying to play federer in not knowing when to volley (and when he did it was just to the middle of the court, dumb against a 1hbh) and thinking you can serve past the guy but surprise, he just blocks back like he always does. It was classic Federer but damn yo go look at classic Nadal for how to counter him.
Both finals were duds, really. Venus did not want to move around yesterday and could have easily came in to volley Muguruza away since she only knows how to baseline bash, yet Williams decided to just duel it out like she was playing her sister. And when Venus didn't get those break points in the first set she just gave up, not to mention she was serving almost as bad/slow as Dementieva used to.
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
also the men's doubles final went five hours and is supposedly very good (13-11 5th set), I need to find that match.
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
hurricane got in the way of US Open this year for me, but Flushing Meadows delivered good results! An American was guaranteed to win the women's draw from the semi-finals on and Sloane seems to have the most viability for continued success of the current US ladies ('member Melanie Oudin?), and Nadal won #16.
People are trying to asterisk the Nadal win because Murray and Djokovic weren't in the draw and he didn't play Federer but if that's the case we need to ignore Roland Garros 2009 yeah fam?
If Djokovic v Nadal is pushed to tomorrow, is the final going to be pushed to Monday? Otherwise someone doesn't get a recovery day and someone else does.
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
I doubt it, unless Nadal/Djoko also goes 5 sets. Although maybe the teams of each player would argue they should have just started on No. 1 or 2 court (and then kick the doubles and kids stuff to another court) but that's too much monday morning quarterbacking.
If it's pushed to Monday it'll become public seating which will be awesome just like the 2001 final was.
Posts
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Steam | XBL
Steam | XBL
Granted, Murray could seemingly barely stand upright after the 3rd set tiebreak.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
When it gets tough it tends to bring out the best in her. But I do wonder if that means she's making it a tad harder for herself than it needs to be.
The match with Venus should be quite something.
Steam | XBL
Steam | XBL
Nooooooo
Sad way to go out.
Steam | XBL
Should be a terrific few more days of tennis.
Steam | XBL
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
For those unaware:
Murray is an outspoken proponent for equal prize money between the women's and men's tournaments, but this was off the cuff immediately shutting down casual sexism. It's a great example of how to not just shrug this stuff off, instead correct it and stare down the chucklers.
Like most people who cover tennis the reporter doesn't know his stuff outside of generic talking points, but at least let the guy finish his sentence and go "well Venus and Serena show up all the time in the semis and they're American, so (ramble about a question you don't care about)"
When he won Wimbledon for the first time more than one person said it was the first British winner for seventy years or something, conveniently forgetting Virginia Wade. He was interviewed about being the first tennis player to win two gold medals, which made him raise an eyebrow and say ahem what about the Williams sisters?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
At least Muguruza has won a slam so it shouldn't be the usual yips that happen
Steam | XBL
Well played Querrey too. Just good stuff all round.
Steam | XBL
I'm at work, and can't watch, but yikes, it looks like Berdych is giving Federer a run for his money.
Berdych is playing very well.
both on tiebreaks.
3-3 in the third as I write. Even if Federer takes it in straight sets that is no slight on Berdych at all.
Edit:
Berdych did himself proud, though.
Steam | XBL
Steam | XBL
It's weird, some people are like "Oh, this is such a disappointment, Federer won, but it wasn't against Nadal or Djokovic or Murray, so this one doesn't mean nearly so much." I mean, he beat the guys currently ranked 6, 7, 11 and 13 to do it. It's not like he beat scrubs off of the street! We've just been in such a weird place in tennis for the last decade, where Federer/Nadal/Djokovic and sometimes Murray are just so much better than the average player that they've distorted perceptions of what's good and what's not.
He may not have faced any of the others of the big four this time, but you're quite right, Federer didn't just stroll to victory. He played his heart out the whole tournament and you could see it, and how much it meant to him. And he was typically gracious with how he spoke to Cilic afterwards.
Steam | XBL
I've never bought that argument in an elimination tournament fashion. You don't make the Final of Wimbledon if you aren't one of the best tennis players in the world.
Both finals were duds, really. Venus did not want to move around yesterday and could have easily came in to volley Muguruza away since she only knows how to baseline bash, yet Williams decided to just duel it out like she was playing her sister. And when Venus didn't get those break points in the first set she just gave up, not to mention she was serving almost as bad/slow as Dementieva used to.
People are trying to asterisk the Nadal win because Murray and Djokovic weren't in the draw and he didn't play Federer but if that's the case we need to ignore Roland Garros 2009 yeah fam?
Steam | XBL
Steam | XBL
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
Djokovic v Nadal was supposed to be after this match. No idea what they're going to do about that yet.
19-20 now.
Steam | XBL
Steam | XBL
Steam | XBL
If it's pushed to Monday it'll become public seating which will be awesome just like the 2001 final was.