Wimbledon 2010

You might not have been able to see through the enormous obstacle that is the World Cup, but the year's biggest professional tennis tournament has just concluded.

I have to confess to having not seen much of Wimbledon 2010 myself.  Yet I saw enough to know that there were shocks, an infeasibly long match and unrecognisable Russians in the latter stages of the women's event.  At the end the man who always wins took off with men's singles honours.  No, not that man who always wins, the other man who always wins.

Neither of whom are Andy Murray.  Britain's anti-hero succumbed to eventual champion (and man who always wins) Rafa Nadal in the semi-finals.  Before that he had looked promising in taking apart a variety of no-hopers along with Jo-Wilfred Tsonga of France.  None of his victories were greeted with much fanfare among the public, as the English masses continue to castigate the Scot for suggesting that he might not be in love with England some 17 years ago.  What's really behind the anti-Murray feeling of course is the fact that he is uncomfortably close to being a winner.  We'd all much rather laugh at Phil Tuffnell than take to our hearts a man who can honestly boast that there are only two men on the planet who consistently play better tennis than he does.

Those hoping for a Nadal-Federer final were left disappointed as the smarmy Swiss legend was beaten in the quarter-finals by Thomas Berdych.  The previously unheralded Czech will jump to 11th in the world rankings as a result of his fine run, which included the four-set dismissal of Federer;

"I'm looking forward to a rest and then I'll attack again in North America" said Federer after the defeat, sounding a little too much like Kim-Yung-Il for anyone's liking. 

Though he can add Novak Djokovic to his notable list of victims Berdych turned out to be no match for Nadal, who disposed of him in three sets with the minimum of fuss.  The Spaniard dropped just 12 games in the final and finished it with the kind of cross-court forehand normally reserved for immortals.  It was just that good.  Even if you don't like tennis.

An interesting sub-plot to the men's event was the record-breaking first round encounter between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut.  Astoundingly it took 11 hours and five minutes to separate these two, while the last of the five sets was longer than any other entire match in Grand Slam history.  Eventually Isner came through 70-68 in the fifth, but was promptly dispatched in the second round in straight sets by Dutchman Thiemo De Bakker.  This defeat occured only a day after the Mahut Marathon, and surely calls into question the wisdom of everyone involved with the tournament including the players.  Quite why a fifth set cannot be decided by a tie-break is beyond my admittedly limited understanding of the game.  For his part, Mahut was back on court later that same day, playing doubles with Arnaud Clement against British pair Colin Fleming and the brilliantly named Ken Skupski.  The match was suspended after the first set (presumably because it was midnight by then) and Mahut and Clement eventually succumbed to defeat, much to the disgust of Clement.

To the women now and well, once Maria Sharapova was knocked out by Serena Williams (you know?  the one who always wins?  No, the other one who always wins) I have to admit to losing interest.  This despite the rather interesting fact that three of the four semi-finalists were relative unknowns, with Vera Zvonoreva, Petra Kvitova and Tsvetana Pironkova joining Williams the younger at that stage.  The latter had put out Venus Williams to get there.  The final was over in just over an hour and was criminally devoid of Sharapova's incessant grunting.  Victory over Zvonoreva brought Williams' fourth title, a ninth overall for the family. 

Next up is the US Open in September, where we await Roger's terrible revenge.