Every Grand Slam is a trade-off. If the first 10 days are
dull and by the book, chances are the final weekend will be a dramatic one. And,
conversely, if you see a lot of action—i.e. upsets—through the early rounds, in
the end you’re going to be left without the tension and potential for
historical fireworks that the marquee names bring with them. Novelty and
surprise quickly descend into the fluky and forgettable. The past decade, in which
the majors went to seeding 32 players, thereby reducing the chances for
first-round shockers, has been one where the excitement at the Slams has
typically peaked over the final two days. This year’s Wimbledon was an exception. Early chaos led to quiet endings; the
finals were a pair of efficient masterpieces by the world’s No. 1 players that, from a dramatic standpoint, bordered on the tedious. Whether this
tournament heralds a new era of chaos and tedium—particularly on the men’s
side—remains to be seen.

Now, however, is not yet the time to look ahead. It’s time
to review, to judge, to praise, to mock, to trash what transpired over the last
two weeks at the All England Club. Let’s start with the praises.

Rafael Nadal

The last three Wimbledon men’s finals were all-time classics
that lasted into the early London evening. So when Nadal hit
a winning crosscourt forehand to end this year’s final, it seemed way too early in
the day for the match to be over.
When he fell on the cracked brown dirt at the baseline, it hardly seemed
like the end of a Wimbledon final at all. There’d been no seesaw drama. The crowd was never
brought to its feet. There was no victor’s climb into the stands.
Even Nadal’s most notable celebratory gesture—he somersaulted soccer-style on
the grass—looked like it had been rehearsed, as if he’d been so confident
of winning that he’d scrapped his last practice session so he could perfect his roll on the turf.

Of course, if you know anything about tennis, and the subtle
ways in which excellence in the sport works, you couldn’t have been bored by Nadal’s
performance. The fact that this match felt like a foregone conclusion is, more
than anything, a credit to his all-business mastery of the moment, and the long-term improvements he’s made to his game over the years. Yes, Berdych
failed to capitalize on his few opportunities; the squandered break points at
the start of the second set were particularly crucial. And he fell
apart at exactly the wrong moments. But Nadal was also not at his best. He was
blatantly nervous to begin the second set, and he never reached his peak level
of shot-making energy the whole afternoon. But he didn’t need to be, because, in an inconspicuous way, he had taken Berdych out of his own game. Remember, the Czech was a former nemesis of Nadal’s. He beat him three straight times at one stage,
and his assets were seen as the template for how to beat Nadal: He was tall
enough to handle his topspin, he could hit through the court on either side,
and he owned a two-handed backhand that could go toe-to-toe with Nadal’s
crosscourt forehand.

Considering that Nadal has beaten Berdych in their last seven matches without
dropping a set, how do we like that template now? Watching the final, I started to think that Berdych’s
game is exactly the wrong one to throw up against Rafa, and the reason for that
turnaround was obvious: Nadal had transformed all of Berdych’s old strengths
against him into weaknesses. He drew errors by hitting low slice backhands that
forced Berdych to bend and dig. He hit his crosscourt forehand at a safe and
slightly wider angle than normal to take advantage of Berdych’s lack of reach
with his two-hander. And most important, he stretched Berdych with his bending
slice serve to the backhand side and fired the ball into the tall man’s body to jam him.

Turning your opponent’s strengths into liabilities, and your
own liabilities into strengths: There’s the mark of a mature player, and it’s
got nothing to do with muscle or speed. Nadal and his uncle Toni once said,
with all sincerity, that when Rafa began his pro career he had the worst serve
on tour—the worst. Look what that shot is doing for him now; he just went
through a Grand Slam final unbroken. As I said, all of those
holds did not make for a crowd-pleasing performance. But that’s exactly what we
used to say about Pete Sampras, and, in his days of utter dominance, Roger
Federer. What else does this “dull” duo have in common? They’re widely thought of as the two greatest tennis players in history. Nadal has always been celebrated for the youthful vibrancy he brings to tennis. But it may be a
sign that, at 24, he’s reaching his mature peak when we can give him an even
higher compliment. Wear it as a badge of honor, Rafa, because only the very
best are lucky enough to have it pinned on them: You were good enough to be called boring. A+

Serena Williams

This was also Serena’s no-drama Slam. She was even more
efficient and Sampras-like than Nadal, and she made the women’s final seem even
more of a foregone conclusion than the men’s. By the end, she was playing
what I think of as men’s-style grass court tennis. Her serve, her return, and
her first stroke allowed her to clamp down on rallies immediately, to the
point where she didn’t even need to assert her superiority with the rest of her
game. Serena didn’t need to show that she was faster, or a more powerful and
accurate ground-stroker, than Zvonareva. She could win Wimbledon and still keep
something in reserve.

But over the fortnight Serena showed that she can win in
various ways. She absorbed Maria Sharapova’s biggest hits and sent them back to
the corners with even more pace. She fought off the inspired athleticism of
Petra Kvitova, as well as her own nerves, in the semis. In both of those
matches, when the two or three points that made the difference in the match
arrived, Serena won them. For all the talk of the grass game has
changed, it still comes down to those few moments. It’s about hanging on
to what you’re given—namely, your serve—and being patient enough to take what
your opponent gives you—in this instance, a double-fault at 9-9 in a
tiebreaker by Sharapova, which Serena, opportunist extraordinaire, followed up with a soul-crushing ace. We’ve always said that Venus Williams is the greatest women’s
grass-court player of her era. When this era, the Williams era, finally does
end, I don’t think we’ll be saying that anymore. A+

Isner-Mahut

The modern game meets the pre-modern format on a side court in the first round. Awesome and
dull, its high quality was mind-numbing. After 40-odd years of professional tennis,
with all of its technology, training, and shot-making evolution, these two
second-tier players showed how proficient—bizarrely proficient—the men’s game
has become. They also showed, especially in the words of the loser, Mahut, how
gracious it has become. The prize ceremony afterward was awkward but sweet. And deserved. A+

Vera Zvonareva

She’s always had the ball-striking skill, but this time she
managed to channel her famous well of emotion into something positive. She cried
when it was over, but what I’ll remember from her over these two weeks was the
determined but controlled way she pulled ahead in her third sets with Clijsters
and Pironkova. Zveonareva looked like she was learning on the spot that she really does have a top-level game. A

Tomas Berdych

If he never reaches another major final, Berdych will go
down as a footnote in tennis history—conqueror of Federer, victim of Nadal,
and, if the men’s game continues to get taller, a sign of things to come.
When he first appeared seven seasons ago, he looked
like the next step, after Marat Safin, in towering, effortless power. But for
years he was a cold and indifferent competitor, and the smoothness of his game
got lost underneath that icily frustrating surface. But it rose back up in the quarters and semis at Wimbledon.
The inside-out forehand that Berdych seems to caress for 90-m.p.h. winners, in
particular, is a shot I’ve never seen from anyone. It was fun and inspiring to watch him exceed himself in the final game against Federer, but that success
made it a little surprising that he couldn’t find a way to do it again in the
final. Where Berdych had been bold, he was hesitant, his shot selection confused. He missed balls even before he got a chance to pull the trigger on a big one. 

Is Berdych the next del Potro, a guy on his way to better things? Or is he the next Soderling, a guy who may have hit his ceiling? If I had to guess, I’d say the latter. It’s tough to make yourself significantly more confident, to re-imagine yourself and your place in the game, in the middle of your career. Either way, when he’s striking the ball
smoothly and competing with heart, Berdych is an appealing addition to the top
tier. My favorite unexplained moment: What inside joke was he laughing at as he
pointed to his box after beating Federer? Who would have thought that the
cold-eyed Czech would consider the biggest win of his career so hilarious? A

***

Back with the rest, and the worst, tomorrow.

Howdy, everyone. Today is catch-up day at the office. Tomorrow I’ll empty my mental outbox with random thoughts, impressions and experiences from my stint at Wimbledon. I may not get to post tomorrow on Matt Harvey, the Wimbledon poet, with whom I had a visit last week, but that too will get done. I think writing one up is appropriate. Meanwhile, though,we ought to fire a shot across Matt’s bow, courtesy of our own poet laureate, Madame Highpockets.

You can use this post to get silly in any number of ways, including talking tennis. I mean, Kleybanova is winning in Budapest and Flavia Pennetta is rockin’ in the Swedish Open. Dent is out of Newport, and so forth .  .  .  The beat goes on. The tennis beat always goes on. But first, let’s stop and celebrate Wimbledon in our customary manner, in verse.

PS – don’t you love that “third-grade class picture” smile on Rafa’s face in this photo?

– Pete

                                        Lads in London

by Highpockets

As the glorious sun kissed the grass on the hill,

And they dressed Centre Court in the new morning chill,

Wimbledon held out her arms to the masses;

To the tents in the Queue filled with laddies and lasses.

It wasnt the greatest in Wimbledon lore,

But a first round encounter left us begging for more.

For the first time since disco, Her Majesty came,

Hoping her visit would lift Andys game.

The World Cup unfolded and flags were unfurled,

And a Wimbledon match cast a spell on the world.

On a distant grass court, two men battled on,

A Frenchman named Nick and a Bulldog named John.

Neither man would concede or succumb to defeat,

And Mohammed Layani stayed glued to his seat.

New words of encouragement made their debut:

“Never give up think of Isner/Mahut!”

This fortnight was crazy, a twitterers dream;

Upsets were common, five-setters routine.

The umps were exacting, Novotny was busy;

And Fed got ejected and left in a tizzy.

The sun on the court was toasty and warm,

With nary a sign of a squall or a storm.

Inspired and charming was young Randy Lu,

And the Queen wore a suit of robins egg blue.

Murray/Nadal was a thrilling display

Of predators probing and testing their prey:

A volley stupendous, a drop shot disguise;

You couldnt ask more from these talented guys.

Tomas lost to the champ, but it wasnt tragic;

He still got to feel that Wimbledon magic.

Theres a feeling of history here in this place,

A timeless event in a cool green embrace.

As for Rafa Nadal, well, what can you say?

It just doesnt matter if its grass, hard or clay.

The Spaniards a genius, a masterful stud,

Who fights like no other when hes out for blood.

He believed in himself and defended his crown;l

He covered the court, chasing everything down.

As he fell to the grass, the crowd cheered with joy;

They cant get enough of this jubilant boy.

Fred Perry, youre safe; and Pete, so are you;

You still have your records; no need to be blue.

As for me, Ill go out and plant my verbena,

And wait for the day Rafael plays Serena.

Have a good day, everyone!

by Pete Bodo

I had a nice visit with Wimbledon poet Matthew Howe the other day, but probably won’t have time to write a post on it before the tournament ends, so look for that next week. I’d heard that Simon Barnes went after Howe in a column published in his newspaper, The Times of London. Barnes, you all may know, has staked out the “poetic prose” ground in tennis, so I was curious to see his thoughts; could the green-eyed monster be driving a turf war here?

Unfortunately, when I Googled the subject, I was unable to punch up Barnes’s column – that paywall (take note, it’s coming to your neighborhood soon) seems to be working pretty well. But I had a good laugh when I stumbled on this item at Tennis Planet. Check out the first comment. Yes, I’ve asked Cilla, aka Madame Highpockets, TW poet laureate, to make another of her contributions for this tournament. I’m hoping she can craft another epic (none of this haiku crap for ‘Pockets) to commemorate this year’s event.

Here’s a taste, which Cilla sent me a few days ago:

A coaching refrain made its timely debut:
“Never give up—think of Isner/Mahut.”

Now we’re talking art.

It’s throwdown day for the women, although if I were Vera Zvonareva I’m more likely be throwing up right about now. The mood around the press centre here at Wimbledon is funereal, except for those wags who are hoping for a quick mercy killing so they can run up to the bar and start quaffing warm beer while watching football. I wonder why the brass band on up on Henman Hill (it’s already packed with fans, three hours before the women’s final is scheduled to start) has abandoned those spiffy red-and-black uniforms with the gleaming brass buttons and spats in favor of black suits and fedoras.

I was asked to do Radio Wimbledon again this morning, and we talked about the men’s semis and upcoming women’s final. “What can Vera do to win this match,” Sam Lloyd asked.

“Nothin’,” I replied.

Okay, I’m kidding. You can’t do that on air. So I rode round the bottom of that mesa, putting it more or less like this: The problem for Vera is that it’s all on Serena. Her winners – or errors – will dictate what happens. You just can’t go up against Serena thinking: Well, I’m going to work that backhand, and try to go cross-court with my service returns because the net is lower in the middle. . .

The main thing Vera Zvonareva needs is patience, even though a best-of-three match on grass isn’t right up there hiking the Appalachian Trial when it comes to working out how you want to do things. Yield the high ground to Serena, watch, and probe, to see if there’s any damage to be done that isn’t self-inflicted by Serena. Vera probably will have a few chances; you almost always have those. She needs to be ready to make the most of them.

When returning, Vera needs to take chances. I’ve got to believe she’s scouted Serena’s patterns. So she has to guess, the way a goalkeeper must when facing a penalty kick. If Vera waits to see which way the ball is heading, she’ll be spanking the air. Vera’s hands are good enough to give her a chance to chip back second serves, if she takes them from on or just inside the baseline. Basically, she needs to take an aggressive receiving stance while playing a conservative return. Just get the ball back – she’s better off tossing junk than a firm, true shot that gives Serena pace to use anyway.

It will be difficult for Vera to be patient, especially if Serena does some damage early. The last thing any player in a major final wants to do is let the match go by without really taking part in it. But patient isn’t necessarily the same as being passive, and I can see only two ways to beat Serena: Dictate (the way Maria Sharapova tried to do) or fight a guerrilla war. And there’s no way Vera can dictate.

But there’s a reason they actually go out and play the game, so we’ll see. . .

by Pete Bodo

Tsvetana Pironkova comes from Plovdiv in Bulgaria, a nation that has not a single grass court (although it sure has no shortage of consonants). It doesn’t have a single tennis academy. Pironkova’s father is a canoeing champion-slash-tennis coach, which is a little like being a shoemaker-slash-dentist.

Pironkova, ranked No. 82, lost in the first round in nine consecutive tournaments during one horrendous stumble in a generally dismal 2009 (she wasn’t the only Wimbledon quarterfinalist who’d just as soon forget 2009; Kaia Kanepi crashed and burned in the starting blocks 11 consecutive times). And Pironkova had won exactly one match at Wimbledon before this year. But she never lost faith. As she said after her sensational upset of Venus Williams in the quarterfinals: “Wimbledon has always been, you know, like a religion to me.” 

Which sort of implies that Venus Williams is something like Athena, Buddha, the earth mother, Joan d’Arc and Oprah all rolled into one. That made no difference to Pironkova, for even the gods get a little tired of hurling all those thunderbolts and imposing their will on recalcitrant mortals. Pironkova capitalized on Venus’ alarming inconsistency (the five-time Wimbledon champion won just 38 per cent of the points played from the baseline, and hit the same low number of aces as her opponent—three—while tossing in four more double faults for a total of five). Pironkova played solid tennis on the key points, which is all that was really required to topple Venus from her pedestal today. The biggest mistake she avoided was trying to play too well.

Pironkova’s reverence for Wimbledon is no small thing. It’s easy for many of us to forget that in more of the world than not, Wimbledon remains the mecca of tennis, often the only outpost of tennis with which people are even vaguely familiar. Whether Pironkova’s reverence for this tournament played a role in her career-defining moment was a factor today can be debated, but the daunting nature of her mission—to play well here in London—can be established. She hadn’t set foot on a grass court until she traveled to nearby Roehampton to play Wimbledon qualifying. It was so long ago that she doesn’t even remember the year (she guessed 2005); she may be just 22, but as she told us today:

“I started [tennis] ever since I was a baby actually, because my father is a tennis coach. Maybe the first time I hit the ball I was around three years old, and later on I started to play more seriously.  My first tournament I think I played when I was seven years old or something like that. That’s pretty much it. My father is a coach. So I spent, you know, almost the whole of my life on the tennis court.”

Trying to recall that first experience on grass at Roehampton, she said: “Back then, I thought, Wow, it’s impossible. How can I play on this surface? But with every match that I play on grass I feel better and better.”

All those hours spent entrenched on whatever baseline was handy back in Plovdiv, and her expanding portfolio on grass, paid off for Pironkova today—a day with a double-barreled surprise for the pundits. While Pironkova stood her ground against Venus, Kim Clijsters went to pieces against a young lady who knows a thing or two about melting down herself, Vera Zvonareva. Clijsters’ collapse—although “paralysis” would be a better word to describe her general demeanor in the decisive third set—was especially shocking in light of how well she had played yesterday while wrecking her countrywoman, Justine Henin.

But never mind about that. Clijsters and even Zvonareva are known quantities, each in her own way a flawed competitor to this point in her career. Pironkova, though, is relatively unknown, through no fault of ours. She was refreshingly direct and clear-headed in her press conference. She said of her win, “Well, I didn’t have a particular strategy against her. I just tried to play my game, which is like move her as much as possible. I tried to put my first serve as much as I could in the court. Yeah, I think I also did a very good defense. Well, I cannot say what surprised me. But I think it was quicker than I thought. Winning 6-2, 6-3, it was the biggest surprise for me. I expected like a longer match.”

So did Venus. But give the older of the Williams sisters credit for how she handled this disaster, if not for how she played. She was forthcoming and humble during the post mortems; there was no trace of the familiar opacity despite the magnitude of her hurt.

“It’s very disappointing,” she said. “I felt like I played some players along the way who played really well. You know, I think she played really well, too, but maybe not as tough as my fourth round or my third round or even my second round. You know, to not be able to bring my best tennis today and to just make that many errors is disappointing in a match where I feel like, you know, I wasn’t overpowered. I wasn’t hit off the court or anything, where I just kind of let myself exit. So obviously I’m not pleased with this result, but I have to move on.  What else can I do?  Unless I have a time machine, which I don’t.”

Venus was particularly weak in the take-charge department. Pironkova is the kind of player who’s expert at poking at the dog with a stick. She’ll leave an opponent with a chance to take a fairly neutral, mid-court ball, daring her to do something with it, and trust in her own ability to retrieve or counter-punch. She lured Venus into going for too much—although the favorite’s inability to produce even just enough was just as much a part of her undoing. Venus put it this way: “I just let it spiral and didn’t get any balls in. I mean, I had a lot of opportunities and a lot of short balls. I just seemed to hit each one out.”

She wasn’t being coy; she made 29 unforced errors, to six by Pironkova.

Some losses—or wins, for that matter—are triumphs of technique. Others are propelled by emotions, intelligence, technique or strategy. In which of those departments was Venus most lacking?

“All.” After waiting for the sympathetic laughter to subside, she elaborated: “I didn’t bring my best tennis today. And sometimes, like I said, you really have to live in the moment. I got too caught up in the mistakes I was making instead of just letting it go and moving on. I expect a lot from myself, especially at this tournament.  When I missed a few shots, I think I just kind of, you know, maybe was a little too hard on myself. Usually I stay, you know, for the most part, pretty positive.” 

By any standard, this was a most unusual quarterfinal day at Wimbledon; and here I was, expecting to focus on the journey taken by two fairly obscure players—Kaia Kanepi and Petra Kvitova—into the great unknown kingdom called Semis. As it turned out, neither of them embarked on the trip with a decent GPS. Kaia Kanepi blew a 4-0 third set and multiple match points to allow Kvitova to survive 8-6.

Kvitova was so transported by the challenge that she added a new phrase to the grunting lexicon. Upon winning any of a number of notionally “crucial” points in the final set, she turned to her coach in the player’s box and uttered a short, sharp squeal – as if she had just seen a mouse, but had no stool to leap upon to escape.

All this means that either Zvonareva or Pironkova will play her first Grand Slam final come Saturday. And on Thursday, Kvitova will have to look across the net at Serena Williams, a cat with considerably sharper, larger claws. Still, Kvitova has a huge game; if she can find a heart to match, Serena will have her hands full. But I wouldn’t count on it. Kvitova was asked in her press conference if she believes she can win, and she answered with a frank but not very confidence inspiring “No.”

In some ways, Venus losing before she has to meet Serena might be liberating for the surviving Williams. After all, Serena need feel no conflict or stress about having to take part in another intra-family war. Nor does she have to peek at the draw to see how Venus is doing, which must always remind her of their unique, emotionally tricky situation. Did Venus think she made Serena’s life any easier by losing today?

“Hopefully it makes everybody’s life easier in the draw. . . maybe. But, you know, regardless, I hope that she can win.”

Serena also chimed in on the subject, later: “No (it isn’t a blessing). I obviously always want her to do well and want her to be right there.”

No doubt about it, Serena towers over this reduced field of four. It’s hard to see her leaving London an also-ran, but stranger things have happened. And that was just today.

Mornin’ from tropical London, folks. I rolled in last night and had a nice, late dinner at a local Italian joint with Rosangel, who picked me up at Heefrow. There was only one other couple in the restaurant, until Jeff Tarango and a couple of young kids came in and sat at the next table. I always have to chuckle when I see Jeff at Wimbledon (he does color commentary for Radio Wimbledon), given that he was once a pariah here, after playing the lead role one of the most bizarre and comical (to us, if not Jeff) controversies in recent Wimbledon history.

That incident occurred in 1995, and the most striking thing about it was the way Benedicte Tarango, Jeff’s wife (they’ve since divorced), strolled out onto the court and slapped chair umpire Bruno Rebeuh across the face. Not once, but twice. Rebeuh isn’t seen in the umpire’s chair very much anymore, and all I’ve heard recently is a rumor that he’s the tournament director of a small event in France. Wouldn’t it be a hoot if he hooked up with the hot-blooded and (presumably) single Benedicte?

Anyway, the tennis is starting here, and as you all know this is the best of all days at any Grand Slam event – the second Monday, when the event is awash in great match-ups and still intriguingly chaotic, as a dozen story lines struggle to emerge from the smoke and din of the battlefield. It’s downright distracting; I’m watching Justine Henin battle Kim Clijsters as I type this (Henin is up 3-1, and playing like she means it), and also trying to keep an eye on Venus Williams and Roger Federer.

I expect I’ll write the women today, and probably post some thoughts on one or more of the men’s matches tomorrow morning.

Justine just called for the trainer. She appears to have a right elbow problem, but says she’s alright, and said she’s already taking medication for her shoulder. I like that you can hear the dialog, and wonder if the players are aware of it. Don’t say anything nasty about Champagne Kimmy, Justine, unless you want to end up on YouTube. . .

Justine seems to be finding her groove; that win over Nadia Petrova (see photo) was one of those over-the-hump matches that can really loosen up and energize the winner. Henin had every right to walk off the court after that one, thinking, Hey, I can do this. Piece of cake. And she’s getting slaphappy now, expressing her exuberance right in Kim Clijsters face via a 5-2 lead. But you know the recent history of these two, so this is probably far, far, far from over.

Catch you all later. This is your Crisis Center post for today.

– Pete

WIMBLEDON, England (AP)—Returning to Wimbledon gave Lindsay Davenport a slight case of stage fright.

The three-time Grand Slam champion overcame her butterflies and teamed with Bob Bryan to win in the first round of mixed doubles Friday, beating Aisam-ul-Haq Qureshi and Alla Kudryavtseva 7-6 (3), 6-3.

The tournament is Davenport’s first since the 2008 U.S. Open, when she reached the third round in singles and doubles.

“I’m a little nervous and stressed out,” she said with a laugh. “I was getting sick to my stomach before we went out there, like, ‘What are we doing?’ But I miss having a purpose at home on some days, so it was fun getting up to practice for this.”

Davenport, 34, is the mother of two. She won the singles title at Wimbledon in 1999.

“It’s a comeback, but it’s not like a full-on comeback,” she said. “It’s doubles.”

“Double dipping,” Bryan said.

Davenport plans to play women’s doubles in two tournaments this summer in her native California, but has no tour events on her schedule beyond that. She said she definitely won’t play at the U.S. Open.

Bryan and Davenport are unseeded at Wimbledon and low-key about their chances.

“We have low expectations,” Bryan said. “No pressure.”

But he gave Davenport a rave review for her first-round performance.

“She played great,” he said. “You can’t take away the ball striking, and that is what has always impressed me about Lindsay—the way the ball comes off her racket, and the sound. It was a pleasure to be on the court with her.”

Bryan said he may play mixed doubles with Venus Williams at the 2012 Olympics in London.

It was capped with an embrace at the net between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut, two players that probably knew little about each other heading into Tuesday’s first-round match that went on to end Thursday afternoon in London.

Hugs happen when you spend three days, and 11 hours and five minutes on a court together, beating shot after merciful shot at the other player, hoping he’s the first to balk at the chance that someone might actually win this thing.

The match was incredible for all the records it broke, but what was more impressive might have been the sportsmanship that came along with it. Neither played spent any time complaining to the chair ump or staring down his opponent. The antics that sometimes creep into this fantastic game were all left in the locker room as respect grew between both Isner and Mahut. There were good shots that were rewarded with a smile. Exhausted looks when a drop-shot was played to perfection. Aces that flew past the player as he just walked to the other site of the court.

When it ended, an exhausted hug seemed the only acceptable congratulations for Isner, who won, and Mahut, who contended.

While Isner will move on to the second round at Wimbledon, hoping the next match might be a touch easier, both names are etched into the grass at Wimbledon forever. Court 18 will always be that place that 70-68 happened. Isner will never play another match on television without someone bringing up his win at Wimbledon. Mahut will become a legend in his home country of France.

For two whole days we got to see sport at its best. No jawing, no taunting, no yelling and no frustration. Just two guys that are better at tennis than most in the world, battling like kids on a city court, playing more for pride than a check.

Looking back, it might not be the best match ever, but it sure was the most competitive. 

Yesterday, I arrived at the office at just about the time Roger Federer went two sets down to Alejandro Falla. Because I hadn’t checked scores yet, I was surprised to see a number of messages from radio stations on my answering machine, inquiring about my availability for an interview. While I pondered that, the phone rang and I picked it up. ABC radio. Wanted to know if I could go on on top of the 10 a.m. hour, to which I shrugged and said, “Sure.”

“But if Federer loses, can you go live, immediately?”

“What?”

No sooner did the producer explain the situation than he changed his tack:  “In fact, because of our time constraints, can you do an interview now, based on the assumption that Federer is out? We’ll just tape it, then cue it up when he loses.”

“Well, as long as you don’t expect me to describe match point. . .” I replied.

“No, no, just put it into perspective. You know, most shocking result in Wimbledon history – if it was – that kind of thing.”

“Sure,” I said. “But we’re assuming a lot here.”

Well, you all know Federer came back to win that match, 6-0 in the fifth. And suddenly the phone stopped ringing. One station even called me back to cancel the 2:15 p.m. interview they had booked. I felt jilted, and the ensuing radio silence in my office made me smile. So it goes. Wimbledon started with a bang this year, that’s for sure. Then it grew quiet, but quick.

I had to finish up a John Isner profile for Tennis magazine yesterday as well, and by the time I was ready to post I found that I couldn’t log on to Typepad. I twiddled my thumbs for a while and then went home. There’s always tomorrow. I’d stay at home and watch Wimbledon in HD splendor, my dog’s head in my lap, and get in the swing of Wimbledon things. But it was not to be. In early morning, they had some soccer game on (I hear there’s some kind of soccer tournament running concomitant with Wimbledon); there was no Wimbledon to be had until later in the day – roughly the time that I’d be joining fellow Tennis editors Steve Tignor and David Rosenberg at the Essex House hotel, where we taped a special round-table discussion that will eventually air on the Madison Square Garden network.

So I’m feeling a little like Wimbledon hasn’t even started for me yet, which is okay. I’ll get plenty of the tournament next week, after I arrive in London on Sunday night. Meanwhile, I hope you’re all enjoying the action I’m not seeing. I’m liking Tom Perrotta’s Wimbledon Wire. I can’t link to it at the moment because of our unresolved technical issues. But you can find it on the home page.

I want to catch the end of the Isner-Mahut match in the morning. Both of those boys can bring the heat, and were deadlocked at two-sets each when play was halted for the day. It’s going to be a whale of a set, that’s for sure. 

Anybody have any good suggestions for a live stream from Wimbledon, should the tennis be pre-empted early in the day?

– Pete

When most people think of street magic, they think of David Blaine. Don’t let that stop you from watching this nifty viral clip of Andy Murray performing his own blend of tennis-related street trickery:

The video was filmed in London. Judging by the World Cup results of the English soccer team, it contained the best ball-handling that city has seen in years.

by Bobby Chintapalli, Contributing Writer

Never underestimate the motivation of a woman just getting out of a relationship or hitting a milestone birthday. If she’s at Wimbledon and happens to be one of the two best tennis players in the world, watch out. This year, even more than in recent years if that’s possible, talk about the ladies’ singles title often ends with Venus and Serena Williams. Yet the quest for the Venus Rosewater Dish really starts with 128 players. Let’s take a look at a few of the 64 matches they’ll play in the first round, one quarter of the draw at a time. (The data referenced here is mainly from WTA information and the Wimbledon website. Also the ‘Players’ section under each quarter lists Grand Slam singles winners, former Number 1s, current Top 10 players and a few others.)

QUARTER 1 (SERENA WILLIAMS)

Players

Serena Williams, Maria Sharapova, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Agnieszka Radwanska, Li Na

A Few Notes

This quarter has two of the draw’s three former Wimbledon winners in Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova.

Sharapova, for her part, has a shot here to reach 100 major match wins (along with Svetlana Kuznetsova and Patty Schnyder). Active players who’ve already done this are Venus Williams (195), Serena Williams (192), Justine Henin (136), Elena Dementieva (116) and Kim Clijsters (104).

Also in this quarter is the evergreen Tamarine Tanasugarn, whose first-round match here will be her 100th main draw grass-court match. She’s played more matches on grass than any other active player and has won more too (66 versus 65 for Venus). Hopefully she’ll find a way to “wow wow wow” us again this year.

A Few Good Matches

*Serena Williams vs Michelle Larcher De Brito

*Dominika Cibulkova vs Lucie Safarova

*Melinda Czink vs Agnieszka Radwanska

Highlight Match: Andrea Petkovic vs Anna Chakvetadze (H2H 0-2)

Born just six months apart these two are at different places in their careers, and the rankings illustrate that. Andrea Petkovic, ranked Number 36, hit her career-high ranking this month. Anna Chakvetadze, ranked Number 111, hasn’t had a season-ending ranking this low in seven years; just three years ago she was ranked as high as Number 5. This is Petkovic’s first main draw singles appearance at Wimbledon, while it’s Chakvetadze’s sixth.

They don’t need any help scouting since they played each other last week in Birmingham. Chakvetadze won that match 6-4, 6-4. For Chakvetadze another win here should help take her ranking and confidence in the right direction.

As for Petkovic, the highest-ranked unseeded player, you have to wonder what her loss yesterday against Justine Henin in the ‘s-Hertogenbosch final took out of her. (If you’re a Petkovic fan, as so many are these days, do not seek out pictures from that match. Trust me on this.) The pressure’s on her to show she can get the win this time, and winning this one might help her get over those losses. (If you need more information google ‘Aravane Rezai and Madrid’ or ‘Svetlana Kuznetsova and French Open’.) If Petkovic loses we can likely look forward to an entertaining tweet; if she wins she can likely look forward to Serena Williams.

QUARTER 2 (CAROLINE WOZNIACKI)

Players

Caroline Wozniacki, Sam Stosur, Victoria Azarenka, Zheng Jie

A Few Notes

This is the only quarter of the draw without a former Grand Slam singles winner or a former Number 1. Not surprisingly none of the five players with the best odds of winning the title is in this quarter. The player with the best odds from this quarter is Sam Stosur followed by Caroline Wozniacki and Victoria Azarenka.

Also hanging out here is a woman who played her first Wimbledon before Wozniacki, Azarenka and 21 others in the draw were even born. I’m talking about Kimiko Date Krumm, the oldest woman in the draw. (You didn’t think I’d pass up a chance to mention her, did you?)

Aravane Rezai is here too. How will she fare on grass? And more important what will she wear? The word from Eastbourne is that Wimbledon deemed a white and silver dress she planned to wear was too… silver.

A Few Good Matches

*Sorana Cirstea vs Petra Kvitova

*Magdalena Rybarikova vs Aravene Rezai

*Kaia Kanepi vs Sam Stosur

*Flavia Pennetta vs Anabel Medina Garrigues

*Alexandra Dulgheru vs Kimiko Date Krumm

Highlight Match: Victoria Azarenka [14] vs Mirjana Lucic (H2H 0-0)

After reading about Mirjana Lucic’s background, you know Victoria Azarenka isn’t the scariest name she’s ever seen across from hers on a Wimbledon draw. This is a woman who, at 17, reached the 1999 Wimbledon  semifinals, where she lost to Steffi Graf but not before taking a set off her; this was after she beat Monica Seles in the third round. Soon after she went through personal and financial issues and took an extended break. This is her first Wimbledon main draw appearance since 2000, and she went through qualifying rounds to get here.

If Lucic is trying to make a comeback, Azarenka is trying to find her form and her way back from injury. After getting a thigh injury in Marbella she won two of seven matches – until this week. Yesterday she reached the Eastbourne final, where she lost to Ekaterina Makarova.

Not for nothing is Azarenka one of the most-touted young players. With Lucic having played only one tour tournament this year (but quite a few ITF tournaments), Azarenka’s more used to tennis at this level. She’s expected to win this one. Of course I haven’t seen Lucic play. One of the challenges for Azarenka is that she probably hasn’t either.

One last thing: Check out their WTA head-to-head page. Not for the matches (they never played each other) but for the pictures. I didn’t pick this matchup because Lucic looks like Barbie or because they happen to be a fetching pair of players, but take a look.

QUARTER 3 (JELENA JANKOVIC)

Players

Justine Henin, Kim Clijsters, Jelena Jankovic, Nadia Petrova

A Few Notes

Once again the draw gods insisted that the Belgians stick together. All four Belgians are here, with Justine Henin and Kim Clijsters slated to meet in the fourth round.

The happiest person in this quarter has to be Stephanie Voegele. Last year in her first-ever Wimbledon Round 1, she played Venus Williams. This year in her first-ever French Open Round 1, she played Serena Williams. Now she gets to play one of the 126 people in the draw not named ‘Williams’. No offense to Maria Kirilenko (or her legion of fanboys and fangirls), but surely the sight of her name made Voegele smile?

A Few Good Matches

*Justine Henin vs Anastasija Sevastova

*Vera Zvonareva vs Nuria Llagostera Vives

*Yanina Wickmayer vs Alison Riske

Highlight Match: Jelena Jankovic [4] vs Laura Robson (H2H 0-0)

When you have a former Number 1 who generally brings it (the tennis and the drama) playing the youngest player in the Wimbledon draw – a Brit living in London – you know the photographers will be jostling for courtside space.

Plus both are former Wimbledon champs. Jankovic won the mixed doubles title with Jamie Murray in 2007. Robson, who’s just 16 and a wildcard here, won the girls’ singles title in 2008. (Other girls’ singles winners in the draw are Vera Dushevina, Kirsten Flipkens, Kateryna Bondarenko, Agnieszka Radwanska, Caroline Wozniacki and last year’s winner, Noppawan Lertcheewakarn.)

Jankovic brings experience. Don’t call her a veteran to her face, because she’ll ask if you really mean ‘old’. But she is… a veteran that is (and maybe to a 16-year-old, also old). She has 500+ tour matches on Robson, and she’s in form – only Sam Stosur and Shahar Peer have won more matches this year. Robson though has less pressure, the lefty factor and home-court advantage. And with these two players, if the match isn’t entertaining at least you know the post-match pressers will be.

QUARTER 4 (VENUS WILLIAMS)

Players

Venus Williams, Ana Ivanovic, Francesca Schiavone, Marion Bartoli

A Few Notes

What is it with Venus Williams and the golden oldies? At the French Open, her 14th, her first opponent was the only active player who’s appeared in more French Opens, Patty Schnyder. Here she’ll face Rossana De Los Rios, the third-oldest woman in the draw. And let’s talk about some big round numbers and Venus herself: The five-time Wimbledon winner, who turned 30 this week, is playing in her 50th major. Let’s hope that means Wimbledon will let her play a few matches closer to Centre Court than to the parking lot.

This is the quarter that saw the sudden withdrawal of two seeds yesterday. Dinara Safina, the 20th seed, withdrew due to a low back injury. (That leaves the draw without both of last year’s non-Williams semifinalists. Elena Dementieva withdrew early last week with a calf injury.) Safina’s spot was taken by Melanie Oudin, who became the 33rd seed. Maria Jose Martinez Sanchez, the 22nd seed, withdrew with a knee injury. Her spot was taken by Kateryna Bondarenko, who became the 34th seed.
 

A Few Good Matches

*Francesca Schiavone vs Vera Dushevina

*Petra Martic vs Elena Baltacha

*Julia Goerges vs Marion Bartoli

*Ekaterina Makarova vs Agnes Szavay

*Melanie Oudin vs Anna-Lena Groenefeld

*Angelique Kerber vs Sania Mirza

*Venus Williams vs Rossana De Los Rios

Highlight Match: Shahar Peer [13] vs Ana Ivanovic (H2H 1-0)

Things aren’t usually black and white – there’s also boldface and brackets. And without those Ana Ivanovic is just one of 96 unseeded women in the draw who could meet anyone anytime. She won’t face Venus Williams in the first round, but she didn’t hit the tennis jackpot either. Both are playing in their sixth Wimbledon, but while Peer’s at her career-high ranking, Ivanovic is… not.

For about two years Ivanovic has played tennis her fans likely watch with hands over eyes. It hasn’t been pretty. Yet you have to think she still has weapons she can summon, the ones that got her into some exclusive places (the Grand Slam club, the Number 1 club)? Plus earlier this year she started working with Heinz Gunthardt, Steffi Graf’s former coach, and also made a suprising run to the semifinals in Rome.

Peer though won their only tour meeting – a 2007 three-set match that the score suggests was close. She also won more matches this year than anyone but Sam Stosur, and her losses have been respectable. In fact, her last seven losses have been to a Grand Slam winner or former Number 1. Remind you of someone? This should be the best first-round match of all.