"Official" Wimbledon Thread

I think he has steam, and now he's bumped the seed off from that section, an easier draw than he might have had.

He always makes it interesting, especially if he gets on center court.

 

It is obscenely deep. There are players from countries who had barely heard of tennis in the Becker/Edberg era.

If you ever have one of those Futures tournaments in your area, go and check it out.

I think the prize for winning one is about $1300. The qualifying draw is even bigger than the main draw. You could have to win 8-9 matches to win the whole thing, if you have to go through the qualies.

And ALL those guys can play, even the ones ranked 1000 in the world. It's scary as hell. Unless you're a genius, I can't even imagine how tough it must be to make the leap. You win a tournament, play nine matches, beat everybody, and all it does is raise your ranking from 520 to 507.

And the other 100 guys all want the same thing you do.

The women aren't as deep, but there are still new ones hatching every day, in places like Slovenia and Chinese Taipei and Madagascar and Armenia and places I haven't even heard of.

 

ballscribe,

I've seen a Futures tournament before.

Regarding this deep field you talk about, reading the piece in NYT last weekend about the 18-year-old who can't even win a game in an ATP match to a guy who then can't win a game in the following round...I don't know if that says "deep" to me.

Beyond that...define deep. As in, what's it deep relative to? College tennis? The guys down at the club? I'm not sure Federer makes 8 finals in a row if that's deep. It's so deep that absolutely <I> no one </i> can beat him other than Nadal...on one surface? The fifth seed this Wimbledon is Gonzales...is he really better than the fifth seed 15 years ago?

 

Interesting note: Fifteen years ago, Agassi, Chang and Courier all lost in the first round at Wimbledon. Agassi was seeded third, Chang sixth and Courier eighth.

 

Serena looked awful this morning. I hope she's not headed for another early Wimbledon exit.

 

She didn't look to good early in the Australian either, so I wouldn't worry too much -- unless the hamstring injury is serious.

For any Tim Henman fans out there, or tennis fans in general, you'll probably enjoy this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article1909884.ece

 

Speaking of Timmy, he's got yet another five-setter going this morning.

 

Unfortunately for Henman, he came out on the wrong end of this fifth-setter. Took all his energy to get it to five sets and he was dead once he did. Hopefully he'll do a 15th and final Wimbledon next year.

Federer officially begins his Wimbledon campaign over the weekend, it was nice for the tournament people to give him a couple of live scrimmages first.

 

So I'm watching James Blake losing to Juan Carlos Ferrero and I'm wondering, has there ever been a more overrated player than James Blake?
If he weren't an American, he'd be referred to as a 27-year-old journeyman. But to listen to all of the commentators he's still some great American hope even though he has won exactly NOTHING in his career.

 

Meanwhile, sis Venus looked great in her second round match. I wouldn't count her out just yet.

 

I think it's because he's such a nice guy, who has endured quite a bit over the past five years or so. But he's been awful in 2007.

The bigger mystery to me is Fernando Gonzalez, who looked like the No. 2 player in the world at the Australian Open. Then he, a Chilean, gets bounced in the first round at the French and the third round at Wimbledon.

 

It's not that Blake is overrated.

I'm pretty sure the other 230 nations of the world give him little or no recognition.

But as one of only two Americans within shouting distance of even competing to make it to the second week of a Grand Slam, he will get more coverage in the American media than a player of his limited accomplishments deserves.

Add the "nice guy" and "good comeback from the abyss" factors, and there you have it.