By Art Spander
For Maven Sports
NEW YORK — It has to be more than just the tennis, the simple act of knocking a ball back and forth over a net, even though the skill, the hand-eye coordination, is remarkable.
Copyright 2019, The Maven
WIMBLEDON, England — Stan Wawrinka, a Grand Slam winner, took his tennis defeat by an American with grace. Unlike the way The Sun, the tabloid, took England’s soccer defeat by America.
This was the day after, some 24 hours of regret for England’s team, beaten Tuesday night, 2-1 — or as The Sun printed it, 1-2 — by the United States in the semifinal of the Women’s World Cup.
This also was the day of success, Reilly Opelka of Florida upsetting Wawrinka, 7-5. 3-6. 4-6. 6-4, 8-6, Wednesday in a Wimbledon second-round match.
“He went bigger than me,” Wawrinka said, a statement that, since Opelka is 6-foot-11, could be taken literally. “And he deserved to win.”
So did the U.S. women’s team, albeit the way at least one American player, Alex Morgan, celebrated after her goal, America’s second, mimicking someone sipping tea, was unneeded.
In the United Kingdom they call instant replay VAR, or video assistant referee, and it was a replay that showed England was offside when scoring the apparent tying goal with eight minutes remained in regulation time.
Then the low penalty kick by England’s Steph Houghton was grabbed by goalie Alyssa Naeher to preserve the victory.
Or as the headline in The Sun put it, “LIONESSES LOSE TO V.A.R.MERICA”
Some clever people there, if some disenchanted ones. In The Sun, Martin Lipton called Houghton’s penalty kick “awful.” Hey, they did get to the semis, interestingly the same stage the men’s team reached in the 2018 men’s World Cup.
How far Opelka can go in this Wimbledon debut is problematical, especially because in the next round he faces Milos Raonic, who also has a huge serve and was also a finalist here three years ago.
Still, an another American male who actually can win tennis matches — the way American women win soccer matches — is to be appreciated.
Not that you expect to see him on a tennis court instead of a basketball court. And so Opelka, an inch shorter than 7 feet, was asked quickly enough, “Why are you here and not in the NBA?”
Without hesitation, Opelka responded, “Good question.”
To which the 21-year-old could only answer, “I wish I was. I regret it every day. And yeah, that’s pretty much all I’m going to say.”
Other than basketball is his favorite sport, other than tennis, which now is his profession. “I don’t play (basketball) much anymore," he said. "When I’m home I shoot every day. I go to the court and play all the time. But like I never played serious or anything.”
The 6-foot-9 John Isner, who’s been on the tennis tour more than a decade, was a Wimbledon semifinalist last year; he’s often said if as a kid he knew how tall he'd become, his choice would have been hoops. Opelka beat Isner in the first round of this year’s Australian Open.
The man has an advantage serving and a disadvantage returning. It was Isner who was locked into that 11-hour, three-day match against Nicolas Mahut at Wimbledon in 2010, Isner winning 70-68 in the fifth set, when each player hit serves that couldn’t be returned.
Wawrinka, an even 6 feet, who has won the Australian, French and U.S. Opens, was asked if tennis would become the domain of the really big guy, such as the one who whipped him, Opelka.
“Against the big server, you’re not going to have a lot of chances,” said Wawrinka, “but no I don’t think. We’ve been thinking that for 10 years. But no, I don’t think we’re going in that direction.”
Who knows what direction Opelka is going, but beating a Grand Slam champ, even though Wawrinka is now 34, is hardly unimpressive.
“I had to adjust a lot,” said Opelka. "My mind was always thinking, especially after I lost the third set. He was in every return game.
“I played the big points really well on my serve, and that’s what good players do. They find other ways to win that you’re not always comfortable with.”
Comfortable and uncomfortable, as Opelka pointed out, don’t matter.
As they say in golf, it isn’t how; it’s how many or how much. Opelka had as much as he needed. Just as the night before, the U.S. women soccer team had as much as it needed.
By Art Spander
Featured Columnist
NEW YORK — He was finished with Stan Wawrinka, but the fans were not finished with Roger Federer. They never are. It doesn’t matter. In Australia. At Wimbledon. Or Friday night, at the U.S. Open.
Federer is the people’s choice in tennis. That was loudly obvious in the plaza at the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center. He had shown up in the ESPN booth for a post-match interview, where on a set with a transparent backing he was clearly visible—while the crowd was clearly audible.
Copyright © 2015 Bleacher Report, Inc. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
By Art Spander
NEW YORK — Roger Federer and Serena Williams are here (and still winning), the Pope’s en route and the heat won’t leave. Late summer humidity clings to this place like the vagrants the police commissioner is trying to chase out of the city, in what the New York Post headlined as a "BUMS’ RUSH."
Everything’s here. The tennis open, the traffic, the heat, the misery, the delight. Everyone’s here, or was here. Or will be here. Or is just down the road. “The party’s 15 minutes away,” says the billboard to the right of the Long Island Expressway just out of the Midtown Tunnel. Right around the bend at the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center.
It’s what the Post said about the Yankees' win over the Red Sox on Tuesday night: “Pinsanity,” a play on pinstripes, which along with “Bombers,” as in Bronx Bombers, is how the tabloids refer to the Yanks. New York is a big city, the biggest, the wildest, masquerading as a small town.
In California, seasons are judged by the weather. If it’s foggy along the coast, it must be summer, right? Back east, they adhere to the calendar. Swimming pools open Memorial Day and are drained on or about Labor Day.
It says September, so unpack the winter clothes. The New York Giants (“Big Blue”) and Jets (“Gang Green”) are ready to begin the NFL season. Fortunately, unlike Levi’s Stadium, their shared home, MetLife Stadium, has an overhang.
They’re in the process of building a roof at the tennis complex. The superstructure has been erected, like some enormous spider web. The idea after so many washouts was to play matches during rain, which was something that might have been welcome when the temperature hit the 90s Tuesday and Wednesday.
It was only in the mid-80s Thursday, but oppressive enough. Jack Sock, the 22-year-old from Nebraska, collapsed during the fourth set of his match against Ruben Bemelmans and was carried out. His was the 13thth early retirement in four days of this U.S. Open.
On Wednesday night, around midnight, defending men’s champion Novak Djokovic became so sweaty he planted his hand in a small pile of sawdust — and still couldn’t grip his racquet tightly enough to keep from double-faulting on a serve. He did win his match.
So, Thursday, did Stan Wawrinka, who’s won a French and Australian Open. Wawrinka was a 7-6, 7-6, 7-6 winner over Hyeon Chung, a 19-year-old Korean. The match lasted 3 hours 2 minutes, and Wawrinka, 30, said the conditions “were really tough.”
But he followed with that eternal comment regarding weather, good or bad, to wit, “I don’t know what we can do about it.”
There’s not much we can do about the New York tabs except enjoy them. As someone said long ago, they don’t have stories in New York, they have incidents.
Whether it’s the poor manner in which Jets GM John Idzik drafted in 2014 (“DIRTY DOZEN,” according to the Post) or the refusal by U.S. Tennis Association president Katrina Adams to keep the guest of a big tournament supporter from her private box because the guest wasn’t dressed properly (“Open warfare over jeans”).
You know the line from the Kander-Ebb song, the one linked to Sinatra: “If I can make it there, I'll make it anywhere.” The Open has made it in New York because it’s so much a part of the city — noisy, dramatic, newsworthy. There are stars on the court. There are celebrities in the seats. Derek Jeter, who used to spend his days fielding grounders at Yankee Stadium, spent Tuesday in a private box at Ashe Stadium.
If Wimbledon is the example of English restraint and subtlety, the Open is a boisterous adventure into American free expression. There’s nothing subtle about it, but how could there be when it wants to get noticed and admired in New York?
The other night, after Djokovic’s ridiculously easy victory, a man was brought out of the stands onto the court and began to dance as music poured of the loudspeakers. He waved a towel at Djokovic, who grabbed it and, in good nature, danced along.
Then the guy pulled out an “I Love New York” T-shirt and pulled it over Djokovic’s tennis shirt. Great theater. The Pope, who’s scheduled to be here in late September, will have a difficult act to top.
By Art Spander
NEW YORK — Four hours and nine minutes — of agony and beauty, of courage and dexterity, of power and grace, of ballet with a racquet and a ball, of chances blown and greatness displayed, of a U.S. Open match that was matchless.
Saturday, when America’s game brought out the pompoms and the tailgaters, when someone tweeted that the television viewership for college football was much greater than it was for tennis, and that’s understandable. We love our alma maters. We love our violent sport.
But Saturday was also for a presentation of athletic skill in a game not always appreciated in the United States until put on display as it was when, for 4 hours and 9 minutes, Novak Djokovic and Stanislas Wawrinka served and volleyed against each other until they were near exhaustion.
Djokovic, No. 1 in the men’s rankings, No. 1 in the seedings, ended up the winner, but barely, 2-6, 7-6 (4), 3-6, 6-3, 6-4. For a fourth straight year, he’s in the final. For a third year of the last four, he’s in the final after being down two sets to one in the semifinal.
“These matches are what we live for,” said Djokovic.
What sport lives for. Drama, tension, comebacks, survival.
A game, the third in the fifth set that lasted 21 minutes, that included Wawrinka holding off five break points to win, that had the capacity crowd of 24,000 at Arthur Ashe Stadium screaming, that had the brilliant, lithe Djokovic even more determined.
"I was thinking, I guess everyone was thinking, that whoever wins this game is going to win the match," Djokovic said. "I thought to myself, I guess I have to fight against those odds."
He fought. He persevered, as No. 1 should over No. 9, which is where the 28-year-old Wawrinka of Switzerland is ranked. Maybe because Wawrinka incurred a strained groin tumbling in the fourth set on a cement court that seemed too slippery. Maybe because at age 26, and having won the Open and five other Grand Slam tournaments, Djokovic, of Serbia, is a better player, if marginally.
Wawrinka, who in his years had never been as far in any of the four majors as this spot in the semis, is a battler.
“I gave everything I had,” he said to the crowd, words affirming actions. “I was fighting to the end. It was an amazing experience.”
It was an experience so appreciated that the fans gave Wawrinka, in a shirt as red as his nation’s flag, a deafening round of applause and cheers, drowning out his remarks.
Djokovic, who won the Australian Open and lost Wimbledon, will be in his third Slam final of the year, although to his viewpoint somewhat apologetically.
“It’s obvious Stan played more aggressive, better tennis overall,” said the man known as Nole, accent on the e.
“I was just trying to hang in there. It was not an easy match for both of us. We had to run. I kept trying to find my rhythm. Give credit to him. I was fortunate to play my best tennis when I had to.”
Which in any sport is what champions do.
“He’s not No. 1 for nothing,” said Wawrinka, who also lost to Djokovic in five sets at the Australian Open in January.
“Unfortunately today,” said Wawrinka, “I was a little bit struggling physically. I think that is completely different match than the match we play in the Australian Open. In the Australian Open I had to play my best game to stay with him. Today, I had the feeling when I was still healthy I had the match in control. I was playing better than him, doing much more things than him.”
Djokovic said as much. Yet, the best ones, the winners, in whatever sport, manage to make it through when things go wrong and then produce the big shot or the big hit or the big basket when needed. Nobody plays well all the time. It’s how you finish when you’re not playing well.
The last two years plus, Djokovic has been finishing admirably and successfully, and each step makes the subsequent steps easier, although Djokovic did say he was nervous simply because of the situation, a semifinal in a Grand Slam against an opponent who had just knocked out the defending champion
“Maybe I have a physical edge over him,” Djokovic suggested, “and this kind of match, on a big stage, that experience is going to give me confidence.
“I was frustrated with my own mistakes. I had break-point chances and couldn’t take advantage (he converted only 4 of 19). But I managed to stay tough and play well when I needed to, and that definitely encourages me for the final.”
That, no surprise, will be against Rafael Nadal, who beat Richard Gasquet in the other semi, which followed.
When someone wondered if Djokovic would scout that match, he laughed. “I’m going to grab some popcorn,” he responded, “and watch it on TV.”
After 4 hours and 9 minutes, he was allowed.
By Art Spander
NEW YORK — Timing is everything, isn’t it? We pose the question to Simon Barnes, the excellent sports columnist from the Times of London who crossed the Atlantic solely to bring to his readers the progress of Andy Murray as he tried for a second straight U.S. Open tennis championship.
Murray, the Scot, not only took the Open a year ago but this summer became the first Brit in 77 years to win Wimbledon, a feat that earned front-page headlines in every publication from John O’Groats (as far north as one can go and still be on the British mainland) to Land’s End (as far south).
Barnes arrived in New York just in time for Murray on Thursday to play in the quarterfinals, which against the other guy from Switzerland — Stanislas Wawrinka, not Roger Federer, who was long gone — figured to be a Murray victory.
It was not, however. Wawrinka, with great ground strokes and big serves, upset Murray, 6-4, 6-3, 6-2. He also upset Barnes, whose sole purpose was to write about his countryman.
“It never fails,” said Barnes. “I’ve never seen him win a match, except at Wimbledon.” Those are not to be dismissed, certainly, and Barnes did have the exhilaration of describing Murray’s historic triumph in July.
Still, now and then, Barnes would like his paper to be rewarded for sending him to the four corners of the globe. Twice he went all the way from London to Australia, a journey of nearly 24 hours, to watch and cover Murray, who inconveniently lost the two matches Barnes attended.
But as bad as Barnes feels, Murray, 26, must feel worse. Murray was a semifinalist in 2011 and, of course, a champion in 2012, winning a Slam for the first time. He was ranked and seeded third and had won his previous 11 matches here at Flushing Meadows.
“I would have liked to have played a little bit better,” said Murray, “but, you know, I had a good run the last couple of years. It’s a shame I had to play a bad match today.”
And that Wawrinka, 28 and making it to the semifinals of a Grand Slam event for the first time in his career, had to play an excellent one.
“I thought he played great,” affirmed Murray. “He hit big shots. He passed extremely well. He hit a lot of lines on big points. He served well. That was it. He played a great match.”
A match that elevated Wawrinka into the semifinals.
“To beat him in three sets,” Wawrinka said in an understatement, “is quite good for me.”
Because in pressure situations, Wawrinka has been known to come apart like a cheap watch — not one made in Switzerland, however.
“Normally,” Wawrinka conceded, “I can be a little nervous and I can lose a few games because of that, but today I was just focused on my game. It was windy, was not easy conditions, but my plan was to push him to be aggressive, because I know Andy can be a little bit too defensive. I like it when he’s far back from the baseline, and today I did it well.”
Murray made no excuses, but he reached the summit of the mountain with victory at Wimbledon, where no British male had won singles since 1936. Surely everything else is Peoria. Even Flushing Meadows, where last year he knocked off Novak Djokovic in the final.
It’s hard for an American, a Spaniard, a Swiss to comprehend what winning Wimbledon means to a Brit, and to Britain, even if he’s a Scot, not an Englishman. Lawn tennis developed in Britain, where the Wimbledon tournament is as much a part of the nation as Buckingham Palace.
Over there it’s known simply as “The Championships.”
That would make Murray The Champion.
“It’s not about focus,” he said, responding to a question about competition after Wimbledon. “You know when you work so hard for something for a lot of years, it’s going to take some time to really fire yourself up and get yourself training 110 percent.
“I think it’s kind of natural after what happened at Wimbledon.”
Murray, one of the game’s big four for several years, was properly philosophical, and had the right to be, when asked about the last 12 months as he broke through with two major titles.
“I mean,” he said, “it’s been challenging both ways for different reasons. Physically, I played some extremely tough matches in that period. Mentally, it was very challenging for me to play — Wimbledon, the last few games at Wimbledon may not seem like much to you guys, but to me it was extremely challenging.
“I’ve played my best tennis in the Slams the past two, three years. I mean, I lose today in straight sets. I would have liked to have gone further. But I can’t complain. If someone told me before the U.S. Open last year I would have been here as defending champion, having won Wimbledon and Olympic gold, I could have taken that 100 percent.”
So could Simon Barnes, if he had not chased Andy Murray across the sea for the story.