Well I thought I wanted Rafa to win it until part way through the match, and found myself rooting for Fed. Fair play to him, he outplayed Rafa today, surprisingly on the longer rallies. In a way I was glad, as it upheld his no 2 seeding.
I look forward to a good tussle on Sunday.
Just came on here to catch up with comments on today's final having been out all day, only to find one very short comment from Julia. Guess no one was that bothered, same old, same old. Can't say I minded too much who won but I did expect some sort of commentary/reaction to such a tight match that I wasn't able to see myself. Guess there was too much else going on today.
Just came on here to catch up with comments on today's final having been out all day, only to find one very short comment from Julia. Guess no one was that bothered, same old, same old. Can't say I minded too much who won but I did expect some sort of commentary/reaction to such a tight match that I wasn't able to see myself. Guess there was too much else going on today.
Yeah, like England (eventually) beating the Kiwis to win the Cricket World Cup. Couldn't be arsed to watch the tennis, since I don't particularly like Roger the Lodger or Djokovic. That said, the former went up a bit in my estimation when he invited/paid for Evo to go & practise with him at his home in Switzerland earlier in the year. Wouldn't have bothered with the cricket, either, had not Sky waived its exclusive rights to coverage & allowed Channel 4 to show coverage on terrestrial TV.
I think there would also have been more comments had Fed won. I watched the end of the match, and after Fed's two MPs came and went, the rest felt an anti-climax and inevitable. A long intriguing match for sure, but after Kermode, Gimelstob and all, and Djokovic's evasive interviews (no, I haven't even had the time yet to read the evidence of the bloke whom Gimelstob reduced to a bloody pulp, but I still think G is a fine chap), I find Djokovic even less endearing than before, and that's not saying much. Fine player yes, fine bloke no, would rather the bloke with very endearing twins had won.
I watched most of it, Federer seemed to have the upper hand throughout the contest. It seemed inevitable that if/when the match concluded in a tiebreak Djokovic would win it. I can't help but feel if the rule had been set to 20-20 in the fifth that Federer would have won. A bit harsh to decide a grand slam final with a 7 point tiebreak. So Djokovic won by winning three 7 point tiebreaks, not much more than a lottery. I found Djokovic so defensive, always happy to just plod the ball back (obviously with decent depth and pace). Federer resulting in looping backhands of his own, which he almost never did against Rafa. The Rafa match was much more interesting in terms of both players going for it at the first opportunity. Federer can come again, but I can see Djokovic getting the most amount of slam titles now for sure.
I didn't see any of it either. Being a weekend, my internet in Brazil is far worse and so live streaming anything is almost impossible. So I missed the tennis, the cricket AND the British GP from Silverstone. Ho hum. I will do these silly things such as traveling so only myself to blame.
Oh Fed ... the one that got away! At 8-7 in the fifth, his hand was almost on the trophy. On serve at 40-15, having just served two aces, he just had to take one of the two match points but one shot pushed into the tramlines and then a kamikaze approach to the net behind an indecisive forehand and Djokovich was back in the match.
Then at 11-11, he had a further two break points on the Djoko serve. The 2nd one in particular he should have taken. Djoko was at net and there to be passed but Fed didn't really hit it and Djoko somehow scrambled a volley and a smash to rescue the point. By the time it came to the tiebreak at 12-12 Fed's nerves seemed shredded and Djoko played 'clutch' tennis making no mistakes.
Full marks to Djokovic when his back is against the wall he does not miss and keeps the ball in court like no one else.
Just came on here to catch up with comments on today's final having been out all day, only to find one very short comment from Julia. Guess no one was that bothered, same old, same old. Can't say I minded too much who won but I did expect some sort of commentary/reaction to such a tight match that I wasn't able to see myself. Guess there was too much else going on today.
Yeah, like England (eventually) beating the Kiwis to win the Cricket World Cup. Couldn't be arsed to watch the tennis, since I don't particularly like Roger the Lodger or Djokovic. That said, the former went up a bit in my estimation when he invited/paid for Evo to go & practise with him at his home in Switzerland earlier in the year. Wouldn't have bothered with the cricket, either, had not Sky waived its exclusive rights to coverage & allowed Channel 4 to show coverage on terrestrial TV.
It speaks volumes for Cricket, that the world cup final featuring ENGLAND, only gets a tv audience of 4 million, while the Wimbledon final, featuring 2 Europeans, draws in 9 million. The majority of people did not even know the cricket world cup was taking place.
In 2005 after the ashes, cricket was in the limelight, even people on the street had heard of players like Flintoff, now these days it is basically Rugby League or Darts.
Just came on here to catch up with comments on today's final having been out all day, only to find one very short comment from Julia. Guess no one was that bothered, same old, same old. Can't say I minded too much who won but I did expect some sort of commentary/reaction to such a tight match that I wasn't able to see myself. Guess there was too much else going on today.
Yeah, like England (eventually) beating the Kiwis to win the Cricket World Cup. Couldn't be arsed to watch the tennis, since I don't particularly like Roger the Lodger or Djokovic. That said, the former went up a bit in my estimation when he invited/paid for Evo to go & practise with him at his home in Switzerland earlier in the year. Wouldn't have bothered with the cricket, either, had not Sky waived its exclusive rights to coverage & allowed Channel 4 to show coverage on terrestrial TV.
It speaks volumes for Cricket, that the world cup final featuring ENGLAND, only gets a tv audience of 4 million, while the Wimbledon final, featuring 2 Europeans, draws in 9 million. The majority of people did not even know the cricket world cup was taking place.
In 2005 after the ashes, cricket was in the limelight, even people on the street had heard of players like Flintoff, now these days it is basically Rugby League or Darts.
Channel 4 had an audience of about 4.5 million for the cricket
Sky had another 4 million or so.
You've got to put the two together to get the full tv audience