Wimbledon: Garbiñe Makes Venus Cry Like Conchita Martinez Did With Martina Navratilova - UBITENNIS
Connect with us


Wimbledon: Garbiñe Makes Venus Cry Like Conchita Martinez Did With Martina Navratilova



Venus Williams’ tournament started with tears and ended with tears. Her disappointment can be compared to Navratilova’s setback 23 years ago. Williams’ lackluster performance in the second set was inexplicable. Was it because of the Sjogren’s syndrome or simple nerves?


Garbine Muguruza and Venus Williams (zimbio.com)

WIMBLEDON – Venus Williams’ tournament started with tears, when reporters asked her about the fatal car crash that she was involved in back home in Florida a few weeks ago. Venus’ Wimbledon also ended with tears, as Chris Evert – who saw Williams in the locker room after the final – reported to one of my American colleagues.

The women’s final basically lasted only one set, during which Venus Williams failed to capitalize on two set points when she was up 5-4 and 15-40 on Muguruza’s serve. After saving those set points and closing out the first set in 51 minutes, the Spaniard ran away with the second set and the title. When reporters asked Venus about what happened in the second set, the American didn’t provide any clear explanation. She simply gave credit to her opponent showing plenty of fair play. Venus is not someone who usually throws in the towel, instead during Saturday’s final her game completely abandoned her in the second part of the match, allowing Muguruza to capture 9 games in a row. The Spaniard only conceded 11 points in the second set – 6 on her serve and 5 on Venus’ serve.

Venus was diagnosed with Sjogren’s syndrome a few years ago, but it seems improbable that her condition played a role in the outcome of the match. It seemed to me that she fell victim of a psychological collapse. Perhaps her desire to lift her beloved Wimbledon trophy for the 6th time caused her an unbearable stress. Quite frankly her collapse looked strange, especially after such a hard-fought first set.

Conchita Martinez – the Davis and Fed Cup captain for Spain – was sitting in Garbiñe’s players box in a curious situation of history repeating itself. In fact, it is important to remember how Conchita made another 37-year-old legend cry on the same center court. In the 1994 final, Conchita bested none other than Martina Navratilova, who was looking for an elusive 10th Wimbledon title. Martinez – who was primarily a clay-court specialist and whose game was based on a massive top-spin forehand – surprised Navratilova with incredible backhand passing shots and became the first Spanish woman to capture the Wimbledon title in history. 64, 36, 63 was the score in favor of the Spaniard.

Had she won that classic final, Martina would have become the oldest female champion since Charlotte Cooper Sterry in 1908. Venus was looking to accomplish the same feat at this year’s Wimbledon.

Conchita started working with Garbiñe a few days before Wimbledon as a temporary replacement for coach Sam Sumyk, who decided to stay at home in Florida for family reasons. Muguruza hadn’t won any tournaments prior to Wimbledon this year, exactly like French Open champion Jelena Ostapenko before her triumph at Roland Garros last month. A few weeks before the French Open, the Latvian had also started to work with a Spanish “temporary” coach, Medina Garrigues. What a strange coincidence.

The first set of the final offered high quality rallies and great intensity with Venus failing to capitalize on multiple opportunities: She first missed a forehand that would have allowed her to lead 4-2 and then didn’t convert two set points when she was up 5-4. At 5-all, she committed a double fault and two forehand errors that cost her the first set.

Venus was also up 40-30 in the first game of the second set, but another double fault sabotaged her chances to hold serve. The match basically ended there, as Williams never recovered from the disappointment.

Muguruza quickly jumped to a 5-0 lead and unfortunately the match point proved to be anti-climactic, as Williams’ shot landed outside the baseline but the line judge failed to call the ball out. Muguruza had to rely on the hawk-eye challenge system to capture the decisive point of the match. Finally, the Spaniard went down on her knees in an outburst of emotions.

Garbiñe is a very nice girl and made the audience smile during the trophy presentation when she candidly admitted that “Venus is an incredible champion, I grew up watching her play… Sorry!” Venus was maternally laughing with the crowd as well.

When she was asked about a message for her coach Sumyk back home, Muguruza genuinely lifted the Venus Rosewater Dish in front of the camera and said: “Well, here it is!”

During her post-match press conference, Muguruza was also asked about her preference for the traditional Wimbledon Champions’ Ball, during which the ladies’ champion gets to dance with the gentlemen’s champion. “Roger! I would like to see if he’s as elegant as a dancer,” the Spaniard ironically said.
(Article translation provided by T&L Global – Translation & Language Solutions – www.t-lglobal.com )


A new documentary, and the rekindling of Serena Williams’ tryst with 2018 US Open destiny



Serena Williams, 2019 US Open, Patrick Mouratoglou
Photo Credit: US Open/USTA

It’s almost a year since Serena Williams got embroiled in a war of words with chair umpire Carlos Ramos in the 2018 US Open final. The subject is yet to ebb entirely from memory though. The first episode of ESPN’s new documentary series Backstory – featured on the incident involving the 23-time Grand Slam champion – does its bit to ensure that on the eve of the 2019 US Open, attention is centred on what occurred a year ago.


Titled Serena vs the Umpire, the episode is an extrapolation of the match’s progression and what transpired within it. It presents facts through the pros and cons of Williams and Ramos’, and also of Patrick Mouratoglou’s actions that charted the match. Yet, in spite of this, the program makes Williams out as the wronged one.

First, by her coach, Mouratoglou, who displayed his commitment as a mentor by using hand signals to try and guide her. Then, by Ramos who penalised her for the Frenchman’s infraction. Without heeding her vehemence that she was not a party to her coach’s decision-making. The narrative of the program puts it out that regardless of Williams’ behaviour that saw her scream and rant at the umpire and call him a liar and thief, she did not deserve to be termed as the pariah of the match.

The program’s one-sided leaning does not change the problematic aspects of Williams’ and Mouratoglou’s behaviours. Williams, in protesting her innocence about receiving (and accepting) coaching, did cross the line with her aggressiveness. There was – and is – no denying her disrespect towards the authority on the chair officiating the match. And, rationales like the momentousness of the occasion getting to her do not justify her stance at all. Rather, they hinted at her being ill-equipped to handle the scenario in what turned out be the proverbial repeating of history, at the same tournament.

Mouratoglou’s near-immediate (after the end of the match) admission that he tried to help her – and his maintaining to do so, even now – also debilitates Williams’ position. The 49-year-old’s statements about what he thought was Ramos’ inability in letting the match spiral out of bands, is a bemusing segue as well.

“Ramos’ job is also to keep the match under control. He totally lost control of the match, completely, because he reacted with emotions. And he’s not supposed to — he’s a chair umpire, he’s not a player,” Mouratoglou said. Ironically, had Ramos lashed out emotionally instead of abiding the rules, the repercussions would have been far serious for Williams for name-calling him and for continuously challenging his authority.

Mouratoglou’s comments are revealing of how the program does not consider the ramifications of that fracas for Ramos.

Since the International Tennis Federation’s (ITF) rules do not permit Ramos from speaking to the media – including to ESPN for this program – the 48-year-old has been short-changed as he cannot present his point-of-view countering the acclaimed coach. Also, in the year that has almost gone by, the veteran official’s on-court calls have been scrutinised and compared with his umpiring of that match. Moreover, Ramos will not be umpiring any of Williams’ matches at Flushing Meadows in 2019. All of these are indicative of how Ramos’ professionalism has been denigrated.

Players have the right to request to not have certain umpires officiate their matches and many have done so for reasons of their own. The avoidance of the tension between such a player and umpire is undeniably a positive to come out of the move. Yet, what does it leave the umpire with, since, irrespective of how a player behaves with the official, the latter does not have the same means to put forth his officiating preference.

Speaking of preferences, proffering his concluding thoughts on the match, Mouratoglou opined, “It was horrible for us. It was horrible for Serena. It’s fantastic for tennis. It was unbelievable, that was the best moment in tennis of the past 10 years. Tennis was everywhere. You don’t have any drama in tennis. We have drama in all the other sports, but not tennis. People should be allowed to be herself and show emotion. You want passion, that’s why people watch sport. They want things to happen. They want to feel emotion, they want to root for someone, they want to be shocked, they want to be happy, they want to be sad. That’s what they want and everybody felt something that day.”

Indeed, the match prompted reactions from everybody who watched it. Nonetheless, its proceedings overshadowed the game of tennis so much so that the bigger picture was not that of the sport but that of egoism.

Continue Reading


Intriguing Team-Ups Lure Eyes Doubles’ Way. Will They Stay For The Problems, Too?

Will the recent surge in high-profile double partnerships have any impact on the long term future of the discipline?



Cincinnati Open, Western and Southern Open, Andy Murray, Feliciano Lopez
Photo Credit: ATP Tour Twitter

In one of his press conferences at the Western and Southern Open in Cincinnati, Andy Murray said he would not be playing the US Open. His announcement came a day or so after his initial declaration that he would be playing only the two doubles events in the final Major of the season. A few things came out of Murray’s remarks. The first and the obvious was that the former world no. 1 was ready to give it his all (yet again) to play singles. The second, the understated aspect, was that doubles while seeming easy vis-à-vis singles required just as much focus, if not more. Then, there was a third.


In tennis’ continuity though, the relevance of the doubles game is not a recent epiphany. However, the last few tournaments of the 2019 season that featured some eclectic partnerships – Stefanos Tsitispas and Nick Kyrgios, Andy Murray and Feliciano Lopez, the Pliskova twins, Andy and Jamie Murray, and so on – has made doubles slightly more prominent than singles.

Singles has become monotonous with the same set of players making it to the final rounds. On the other hand, doubles has brought in more verve to the existing status quo of the Tour, with each player’s individuality adding to the dynamics of the team. After his first outing as Kyrgios’ doubles partner at the Citi Open in Washington in July, Tsitsipas pointed this out.

“It’s the joy of being with a person who thinks differently and reacts differently. I would characterise him (Kyrgios) as someone who likes to amuse. I’m very serious and concentrated when I play, but he just has the style of speaking all the time. It’s good sometimes to have a change,” the Greek had said.

These changes – as seen with Murray’s recent decision – may not extend for a longer period. The culmination of these short-term team-ups does – and should – not mean the end of the road of doubles piquing attention, per se. At the same time, these transitory partnerships also reroute the discussion back to the financial side of the doubles game.

In a recent interview with Forbes, Jamie Murray – a doubles specialist – shared how conducive it had become for players to take up doubles as the sole means of a tennis career these days, as compared to in the past.

“Because the money is always increasing in tennis, it is a much more viable option to go down the doubles route a lot earlier than previous generations. Before, people would play singles and then when their ranking dropped, they played an extra few years of doubles. Now it is a genuine option to start off much younger and have a career in doubles,” the 33-year-old said.

Despite Murray’s upbeat attitude, these increases have not exactly trickled towards doubles, especially at the Slams including the upcoming edition of the US Open. For 2019, the USTA showed-off yet another hike in the prize-money coffer. The men’s and women’s singles champions will be awarded $3.8 million. In comparison, the men’s and women’s doubles teams winning the respective title will get $740,000. This sum gets further diluted for the mixed-doubles’ titlists who will get $160,000 as a team.

This is the third and final takeaway that emerged from Murray’s US Open call. For several of these singles players, intermittent doubles play is an option. For those who play only doubles, that is the only option they have. The doubles game requires similar effort – travel, expenses and fitness – the costs continue to outweigh the benefits. These momentary team formations are a gauge revealing the disparity of tennis’ two sides, visible yet obliviated beyond tokenism.

Continue Reading


Andy Murray, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic’s Big Four reunion in Cincy



ATP Cincinnati, Andy Murray, Western and Southern Open
Photo Credit: Western and Southern Open Twitter

A few years before, there existed a quartet called Big Four in men’s tennis. At certain points in their time-line of dominance, injuries plagued each member of this four-member group. However, the severity of their affliction in one player, Andy Murray, saw his name erased from this elite pocket. Thus, the Big Four was reduced to the Big Three with Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer making up the troika.


At the 2019 Western and Southern Open in Cincinnati, three of the erstwhile Big Four troupe reunited as they re-entered the circuit’s circus. And each player had a different path leading up to the event, too, underlining how divergent their careers had become despite overlapping scheduling.

The 2016 season was the common catalyst leading to this divergence. From Federer’s injury to him pausing his season to focus on rehab after Wimbledon, to Djokovic pushing his boundary as a marauder and completing the non-calendar Slam, and to Murray ending the season as the world no. 1. The year in consideration also threw up other names – Nadal’s season ended in an agony of injury, while Stan Wawrinka won his third Major at the US Open. In its bounty of giving and taking, 2016 changed how we looked at these players – especially the first four – and the irrevocability of assumption that these guys could get past any hurdles stopping their way.

Juxtaposing with Cincinnati, in the three years since 2016, Federer and Djokovic have vaulted past their share of physical problems. Yet, in the Ohioan city, they have different motivations guiding them. This is the first time that Djokovic has entered the Cincinnati draw as the defending champion. Meanwhile, after having been drawn in the same half as the Serbian, Federer has the proverbial score to settle against him. “I can’t wait for my next rematch with Novak or my next time I can step on a match court and show what I can do,” the 20-time Slam champion said in one of his pre-tournament media interactions in Cincinnati.

There are a few opponents to get past before their slated semi-final meeting occurs. Nonetheless, their sustained competitiveness adds its fervour to the already-hefty top-half of the men’s draw. In the midst of their respectively successful opening rounds, Murray’s first-round defeat to Richard Gasquet in straight sets became a contextual misnomer for comebacks.

Yet, Murray’s was the most stirring return. This was not because of the emotional crossroads that had sprung up at the 2019 Australian Open regarding his retirement. But on account of how farther Murray had leapt to put his physical frailties behind and re-join the singles Tour. And, the Briton’s determination to do so is reminiscent of 2016, all over again. It’s the completion of the circle of how Murray had pushed hard to become the world’s best player and now, he is trying just as much to regain his footing back.

Continue Reading