Wimbledon 2019

First topic message reminder :

Fair weather, at least for the first few days, beckons at Wimbledon. There's a roof on number one court, which is excellent news for those with tickets for that court and for the organisers if the rain arrives.

Djoko is my favourite for the title followed by Federer. Rafa has a difficult draw but how often have we seen tricky draws work out simply due to the fact that projected opponents fall by the wayside.

Difficult to make a case out for anyone outside the top three having a good run. Last year Anderson and Isner made the semis but have not played much this season. Not sure Tsitsipas or Thiem really have the game for grass.

Predicting a women's champion is far from straightforward. Barty is the new number one and with that terrific BH slice could do extremely well. Kerber looked very good in beating Halep at Eastbourne and Pliskova has a chance, although her Wimbledon record is woeful.

You can never rule out Serena and, as I said before the French, practically all the top players have a chance. Intriguing first-round match between Coco Gauff (aged 15) and Venus (aged 39).

This year sees a tiebreak kick in at 12-12 in the final set. It just remains to be seen just how much talk the BBC come up with before showing any action when they start the programmes. Thank God for the red button.

theslosty wrote:At least Fed hasn't crumbled after those 2MPs a la USO 2010/11

That would give scant comfort to Roger...

What a shame for Federer - so near - I think it would have been the greatest sporting achievement since that Greek guy ran a very long way to tell the Athenians about the victory of the Greeks over those Persians.

kemet wrote:Ten years later, and Roger Federer does an Andy Roddick.

Novak Djokovic is a deserving champion.

This is a devastating loss for Federer though....

Very good comparison!

Is there anyone who has been so rock solid as Djoko? Even when Fed had two MPs I still thought Nole would win.

Devastating to lose after having Champs points. I think it's only happened once in the men's GS in about the last 50 years and that was when Gaston Gaudio won the French in 04.

Djoko now has a good chance of taking Fed's GS record and also overtaking his total weeks at number one.

Some Post Wimbledon 2019 Bean Counting:
Roger Federer: .... 20 GS
Rafael Nadal: ...... 18 GS
Novak Djokovic: .. 16 GS

Wimbledon: titles (final appearances):
Roger Federer: .... 8(12)
Novak Djokovic: .. 5(6)

Just looked up the stats. Fed ahead in everything except unforced errors, with a differential of just 9. He won 15 more points and lost. Felt in the crucial moments his 1st serve disappeared and he wasn't always as aggressive as he could have been. Very tough loss indeed!

This was also the first final set tie-breaker at Wimbledon in either the men's or women's singles tournament.

Seems these days Djoko is a worse match-up for Fed than Rafa.

Felt Fed went cross-court to Djoko's BH far too often instead of opening his shoulders and hitting BHs down the line.

It was never a classic but the MP drama and the constant shifting of momentum in that fifth set turned it into a gripping - at times heartbreaking - final.

Good job Fed already has 20 GS titles including eight Wimbledon crowns. Imagine missing two championship points on your own serve and going on never to win a Slam. That's what happened, to the best of my knowledge, to Coria at the French in 04.

The regulation part of the 5th set (to 6-6) was actually fairly poor, but credit to both players that the standard seem to improve after that.

The highlights reel of this match (best half an hour) if done well, will be well worth a watch. But I think very few people will ever rewatch the entire match.

Possibly Federer deserved to win it, but Djokovic was clearly better on the big points. Then again, Federer was probably lucky to beat Roddick in another tight match 10 years ago I think it was. Roddick arguably deserved that one.

I think that's the third time that Djokovic has won from 2 MPs down against Federer. At least two times on the Federer serve.

Do you think he should have gone for more on the approach shot on the match point when he was passed? Maybe a little more I think....

I think what Federer said about Djokovic hitting a lucky shot once at the US Open has come back to haunt him. It can't be luck to hit winners on match point down so many times. Djokovic also saved four match points against Tsonga once at the French Open and won. No-one else has managed to do this kind of thing so many times.

Once Djokovic broke to get to 8-8 I thought it was over, because it had been previously fairly evenly balanced mentally, but after that Djokovic had the physical and mental edge. Federer did well to get from 8-8 to 12-12 actually.

But I think I make that 4-0 between Djokovic and Federer in matches that went the distance of 5 sets.

Fed should have won the first set tiebreak which would have made a huge difference to the match.

I think Djoko is in his head as much as Rafa once was. He just doesn't seem to be able to produce the brilliant shots against Nole (or if he does Djoko gets them back!).

It was always asking a lot of Rog to beat Rafa and Nole in successive matches. Who's done it at a GS? Only Stan the Man, I think.

If this tournament has shown us anything, it is that the Big Three are still miles ahead of the rest. You really can't see anyone winning any of the slams for now. Or am I wrong?

sirfredperry wrote:Fed should have won the first set tiebreak which would have made a huge difference to the match.

I think Djoko is in his head as much as Rafa once was. He just doesn't seem to be able to produce the brilliant shots against Nole (or if he does Djoko gets them back!).

It was always asking a lot of Rog to beat Rafa and Nole in successive matches. Who's done it at a GS? Only Stan the Man, I think.

If this tournament has shown us anything, it is that the Big Three are still miles ahead of the rest. You really can't see anyone winning any of the slams for now. Or am I wrong?

All three are way past their physical best. Just take a look at their photos from ten years ago for Nadal and Djokovic and fifteen years ago for Federer. Yet they continue to adapt their game as they wear out to keep ahead of the field. They will only lose when their bodies are worn out beyond repair. And this is not "one match" - but a match at the end of a long tournament of tennis.

sirfredperry wrote:Fed should have won the first set tiebreak which would have made a huge difference to the match.

I think Djoko is in his head as much as Rafa once was. He just doesn't seem to be able to produce the brilliant shots against Nole (or if he does Djoko gets them back!).

It was always asking a lot of Rog to beat Rafa and Nole in successive matches. Who's done it at a GS? Only Stan the Man, I think.

If this tournament has shown us anything, it is that the Big Three are still miles ahead of the rest. You really can't see anyone winning any of the slams for now. Or am I wrong?

Problem for Roger is that he is a winner, while Novak is a warrior. In the an interview, Novak said that he still believed even when he was down two match points, and Federer's decision-making faltered ever so slightly at a crucial moment.

Tbh I think if Fed had a mental block against Novak today it would have finished a lot sooner. He lost simply because he played 3 poor tiebreaks - whether that was coincidence or there was an underlying reason I'm not sure.

Epic match.

The difference between them - Roger failed to take two championship points on his serve whilst Novak took them. Well done Novak to win when everyone in Centre Court wanted him to lose. Commiserations Roger.

Federer should be kicking himself.

2014 went to five sets, but largely because Djokovic let him off the hook and that match was a case of Federer hanging tough rather than having any real upper hand. And in 2015, Djokovic simply outplayed him relatively comfortably. Federer has nothing to reproach himself for in those defeats...But that's not the case with this one.

People will naturally obsess over the match points (and don't get me wrong, that was a huge opportunity), but for me the damage was done in the first three sets. As Becker pointed out, Federer would very well have wrapped it up in straight sets today as he was clearly the better player for the most part. 5-3 up in the first set breaker, then a 6-1 set in his favour, a set point (admittedly on Djokovic's serve) in the third, and didn't have to face a single break point in any of those three sets - but he choked away those two tie breakers. At the very, very least, he had to be (and should have been) 2-1 up at that stage. After that, I was surprised that he took it to a fifth and stayed with Djokovic all the way to 12-12. But as I said, so much damage done by somehow losing sets one and three.

Djokovic looked second-best for much of the match, never found his best form, wasn't reading or returning the serve as well as we've come to expect and was staring defeat full in the face in that fifth set - and yet he's emerged as the winner. A truly magnificent victory for him and proof again of his unshakable belief and ability to perform under pressure. If he ends up pipping Federer to the Slam record one day, this may well be the match which both men look back on as the one which turned the tide decisively. I said before Roland Garros that if he were to win there and complete another four-timer / Djokerslam I'd have to put him at the top of the tree and say that he's the greatest player in the history of the men's game, even without the Slam record. He didn't quite duplicate that Djokerslam of 2015-16, but the manner of this victory goes some way to making up for that. He's an absolute phenomenon.

Congratulations to Djokovic on #16/#5.

Well, an ultra-dramatic men's final, another fine Rafa-Rog match and Halep's title-clinching brilliance helped cover the fact that this was a somewhat lacklustre championship.

The Coco Gauff story was a good one and there were some strong performances from lesser-known names in the men's. But the way the younger men fell hardly raises hopes for the future, post-Big 3.

And when will that period come? Djoko - only half joking - said he included his future self in the group of 37 year olds who could be inspired by Federer's feats. As it is, at 32, Djoko stands a good chance of winning more GS than anyone.

So where is the next, new, GS men's champion coming from? Good question.

As for the women, I doubt if there's been a better final performance than that of Halep who has proved the most consistent over the last 2-3 years at a time when there has been constant changes in GS winners and number ones.

The big names will have a break now. Then it's the American hard-court season. Will Rog and Rafa finally meet at the USO? And just who can beat Djoko?

Without the injuries you’ve got to wonder how many Wimbledon title Andy would’ve won. Djokovic three times limped past Federer in finals. Djokovic’s wins for more due to his stamina rather than grass court skills.

Federer and Murray are the two best grass court players of this generation. Djokovic lucked out that Federer is an OAP and Murray and Nadal ravaged with injuries.

Djokovic’s 5 Wimbledon’s flatters him massively

NatJ - Certainly Murray's two Wimbledon plus five Queen's titles as well as the 2012 Olympic gold at SW19 illustrate his grass-court pedigree.

He's also done something that neither Rog nor Rafa has done - beaten Djoko in a Wimbledon final.

Talk of that 2013 final reminds me that Djoko saved THREE championship points that day, although back then it didn't do him any good.

You'd think serving out to win a title against Rafa would be about the hardest thing. But it's a tough ask against Nole, it seems.

What a crushing defeat that was. Djokovic was hardly in the match and yet stands triumphant. The one thing he did so well was up the consistency towards the end of the sets (aside the 2nd and 4th set). Took care of his serve when it mattered.

Federer I feel just went missing when the big points came. That FH on BP in the first. That was a killer as nabbing the first set could've made all the difference. The whole shoulda, coulda, woulda I know.

As for those Championship points. Gutting. Served 2 aces in that service game and the 2 points at 40-15 I think he showed too much of an over-eagerness to get the points finished and got burnt.

Congrats to Djokovic, but man it must sting for Federer.

Agreed LK, overeagerness on big points let him down - he wasn't patient in waiting for the right ball to go for the winner, especially in the tie breaks, where he also couldn't find first serves. Think the match points were for the most part well saved by djokovic, though though losing the next 2 points to get broken as well was poor. I do think Federer can win more majors though, his baseline game is looking very solid again.

Djokovic incredibly mentally strong as usual. Think his game style is a big reason for that - his standard rallying shots are so solid and baked in while still being decently penetrating. He knew in the critical moments he could batten down the hatches and force Federer to have to go for something special to win points.

Absolutely OO. I think on the first Championship point he raced the net despite Djokovic having the ball in his BH box plum to swing for a passing shot. Should've sat back and waited for the short ball to come like he had in so many other points during the match.

It just felt that when the return was made on his serve in those points he panicked and that's when he didn't need to.

I am gutted for him. Sounds weird for a guy who's won 20 Slams, but it was the sheer effort he put in securing that break in the 5th which for the longest time didn't seem coming and he gave it back

Who knows how long he has left but it should be clear by now to never write Federer off. There was a lot of doom and gloom after the Millman loss in NYC but I still felt he had one big slam challenge left in him. His level since around 2014 has been fairly stable so hopefully there are one or two chances left for him. Melbourne and Wimbledon would appear to be his best bet. Losing a final like that would be a hard way to finish if that's the last Slam run he makes.

I think I'm slowly coming to the realisation that the big 3 are perhaps the top 3 of all time and the GOAT debate comes down to personal preference. However in terms of the slam tally it feels like yesterday might have swung it towards Djoko.

As a massive Federer fan, for such a successful player he has had his fair share of heartbreak - all I can really reconcile myself with yesterday is that Novak probably should have closed it out 6-3 after he broke first.

Agree that for the most part it wasn't a vintage tournament - highlights for me in 1st week were Nadal v Kyrgios, Coco Gauff's fairytale run and Evans vs Sousa 5 setter finishing under the roof - otherwise it was a bit pedestrian.

However, there were 2 v good semis and a classic final full of great shotmaking (yes, interspersed with some less stellar tennis at times, but I still make it the best final in last 10 years) and plenty of tension/drama. As an aside, when we look back at 2008, as compelling as that one was, Federer was poor in 1st couple of sets and it only really got going with those dramatic tie-breaks in sets 3 and 4.

Djokovic is such a fierce competitor - even if Federer had gone 2 sets up I still think it would have gone to 5 sets. I do feel Djokovic's prowess on grass is underrated. Whilst he may not look as natural as Federer or get the extreme angles and spins that Nadal does, he has developed a v effective all-court grasscourt game and delivered real clutch passing shots and volleys when required. 5 Wimbledon titles may look like it flatters him, but the reality is there are v few players out there who have a great mastery of grasscourt tennis - we're noticing Murray's absence in particular.

I think Djoko with 16 slams will definitely overhaul Nadal's slam title and at the moment it looks to be in the balance on whether he can match or even surpass Federer's 20 slams. Federer throughout his semi-final and final played v well in long baseline rallies, and if he keeps injury free can keep challenging at this level another year. I think at the least he will want to make the 2020 Olympics.

On the men's tournament as a whole I knew as soon as the likes of Thiem, Khachanov, Tsitsipas, Zverev etc were knocked out early that we wouldn't see any blockbuster matches until the semi finals.

Just as you reckon Rafa will have an excellent chance to win the French as long as he's fit, you have to reckon Roger will always remain a threat at Wimbledon.

At the moment, I just can't see anyone outside the Big Three winning a slam. It's probably just as well that the Big Three's careers have pretty much co-incided and that more than 50 slam triumphs have been almost equally shared between them.

Imagine just how dominating any one of them would have been without the other two. Murray and Stan the Man should be commended for managing as many as three Slams during this triumvirate.

It is justifiable to call the era the "Big Four Era" - Andy Murray only fell down when it came to the slams at the semi-final and final stages - and was the first to leave the scene due to irreparable injury - at a time when he would have benefitted (period following summer 2016 onward) in terms of his slam count.

It is clear from their interviews that these four extraordinary talents, who just happened to appear more or less in the same time frame, helped to create a form of group motivation, that pushed all four of them to greater heights.   Federer was probably the seed for all of this.  It sort of left the rest in their wake.  Wawrinka had a late blooming (probably also inspired by Federer - both being Swiss) - but he can never be compared to Murray in terms of longevity and consistency.

What is strange is that no-one in the succeeding generations have been able to come close to them - suggesting that whatever physical and talent attributes they possess - it cannot be reproduced from simple immitation.  Del Potro had the potential to join them but ultimately his technique to get there caused an irreparable injury (sort of mirroring what happened to Laura Robson).

NNB - Didn't mean to be disparaging to Murray by talking about the Big Three rather than the Big Four.

Indeed, as you quite rightly say, Murray can justifiably be mentioned in the same breath as the other three. Yes, his slam count in far less. But 11 GS final appearances and 45 titles overall are stats that speak for themselves.

As for the challenge from the next gen. There is still time. Tsitsipas is still younger than Roger was when the Swiss won his first slam. Zverev is only just 22.

However, I'm not one that thinks it's somehow bad for the game that few of the younger guys are making a real mark. We've got some of the sport's all-time greats around at the same time.

We've just had a cracking semi and final at Wimbledon featuring the old guard. We should enjoy them while we still have them.

I see this period as a winding down of the Big Four Era - with Just a Big Three remaining that are poor shadows of their former physical selves but still good enough to be sort of dominating in the slams though no longer in the Masters and end of year ATP Finals tournament - because they can't physically sustain a season long campaign.

sirfredperry wrote:NatJ - Certainly Murray's two Wimbledon plus five Queen's titles as well as the 2012 Olympic gold at SW19 illustrate his grass-court pedigree.

He's also done something that neither Rog nor Rafa has done - beaten Djoko in a Wimbledon final.

Talk of that 2013 final reminds me that Djoko saved THREE championship points that day, although back then it didn't do him any good.

You'd think serving out to win a title against Rafa would be about the hardest thing. But it's a tough ask against Nole, it seems.

Hi strangers. Long time no type

Extremely unlikely, but given the sheer lack of challenges, I'm not rulling out Murray winning Wimby next year. You won't catch me putting any money on it and like Del Potro it's likely he'll have a Championship winning match in him, but not the three or four you need

One thing that it shows, to all those who used to dismiss Murray (and intiially Nole's) standing in the game. Every slam that goes without someone new winning the thing - the more the standing of him, Novak and Stan increases

MrInvisible wrote:Agree that for the most part it wasn't a vintage tournament - highlights for me in 1st week were Nadal v Kyrgios, Coco Gauff's fairytale run and Evans vs Sousa 5 setter finishing under the roof - otherwise it was a bit pedestrian.

However, there were 2 v good semis and a classic final full of great shotmaking (yes, interspersed with some less stellar tennis at times, but I still make it the best final in last 10 years) and plenty of tension/drama.  As an aside, when we look back at 2008, as compelling as that one was, Federer was poor in 1st couple of sets and it only really got going with those dramatic tie-breaks in sets 3 and 4.

Djokovic is such a fierce competitor - even if Federer had gone 2 sets up I still think it would have gone to 5 sets.  I do feel Djokovic's prowess on grass is underrated.  Whilst he may not look as natural as Federer or get the extreme angles and spins that Nadal does, he has developed a v effective all-court grasscourt game and delivered real clutch passing shots and volleys when required.  5 Wimbledon titles may look like it flatters him, but the reality is there are v few players out there who have a great mastery of grasscourt tennis - we're noticing Murray's absence in particular.

I think Djoko with 16 slams will definitely overhaul Nadal's slam title and at the moment it looks to be in the balance on whether he can match or even surpass Federer's 20 slams.  Federer throughout his semi-final and final played v well in long baseline rallies, and if he keeps injury free can keep challenging at this level another year.  I think at the least he will want to make the 2020 Olympics.

I can't see what's stopping Novak. He's in the mix for slams for at least the next two years unless he gets a Murray type injury and will be favourite in at least 6 of them

I do not see any sudden breakthrough. The problem been is that strenght in depth of the challengers is so severe that whoever is in form, trips up somewhere

My son still laughs at me been shocked at Dimitrovs' nose dive down the rankings - but he forgets just how good he looked 5 years ago!!

Banbrotam: "My son still laughs at me been shocked at Dimitrovs' nose dive down the rankings - but he forgets just how good he looked 5 years ago!!"

Don't give up on Dimi yet. He's still younger than Stan the Man was when he won his first slam.

British Men's rankings post Wimbledon makes interesting reading: 34 Kyle Edmund 1,280 54 Cameron Norrie 950 55 Daniel Evans 942. Maybe even more interesting might be to try and predict which will fair best in the hard court swing and the end of year position. For my part, and I'm very much an amatuer at this, I would suggest that Edmund's 'bigger' game might be effective and (much though I enjoy watching him) Evans' game is least suited.

I keep dreaming it never happened. Instead, it's Fed serving with two championship points. He bangs down a third consecutive ace to take the title and GS number 21, leaving Djoko six adrift on 15.

His two sets of twins grin with delight. Mirka gives her parents-in-law even bigger hugs than she did after the victory over Rafa....

The I wake up and think xxxx.

lags72 wrote:Konta did handle herself rather poorly in the face of that question and won’t have done herself any favours with such an ill-tempered response.  

But I will cut her a bit of a slack in as much as she was no doubt highly emotional after the manner of her loss and overall performance. Losing is of course part & parcel of any sport and I guess we don’t fully understand just how unpleasant it must be to sit and be grilled when you just want to leave immediately and hide away in your hotel / rented house.

Ultimately I can’t see her winning a Slam because she appears to be lacking in mental toughness when it comes to the crunch. But then perhaps others have never rated her Slam material at all ..... ?

Having re-watched the interview I was appalled at her aggressive over reaction to what was a perfectly reasonable question. The question tried to drag her away from her stock lines in defeat, those being to heap praise on her opponent and to focus on her own game and why it wasn't good enough. By snidely snapping "Is that your professional tennis opinion?" she is pretty much telling everyone (including those faithful contributors to this forum) that their opinions are worthless as they don't work in elite level tennis coaching or are not elite level players themselves.

In fact, the accusations of the reporter being bullying couldn't be further from the truth. Her nasty response caused the reporter to whimper out some needless justification for asking a perfectly fair question.

I lost a lot of respect for her after that and whilst I've never rated her highly, I supported her to win the French Open and Wimbledon. Now I see her as petulant and arrogant and won't care to see her continue to fail at the tope level.

Agree completely on the Konta issue, and was a little disheartened to see so many piling in on the reporter. God forbid a reporter asks a tough question which can't just be brushed off with glib sound bites or which makes the interviewee have to think. Whereas it once might have been considered a positive for the press to ask probing questions, now it seems to be bizarrely considered inappropriate and unfair. Boggles the mind. Konta is in a pretty lucky position and was well supported throughout her Wimbledon campaign - she can put up with the odd question which isn't unremittingly positive and which makes her have to face an uncomfortable truth now and then, I'm sure. I'll cut her a bit of slack because it was so soon after the match and of course she'd have been disappointed with her emotions possibly still running high. We've all been unnecessarily curt and snappy like that. But I thought she came across a little petulantly and the wave of gushy support for her 'standing up to the bully' afterwards was confusing to me.

Perhaps Konta should take note of Federer's interview immediately after what was a bitterly-disappointing ending to his Wimbledon final.

By the way, glad to see a goodly response to the Wimbledon 2019 topic, helped, no doubt, by having the Rafa-Rog and Nole-Rog matches at the end.

Bit of a lull, now, in the tennis calendar. Fed has said he'll not play Montreal/Toronto (I've forgotten whose turn it is this year) but will play Cinci. You feel that it's surely time for the young bloods to make a mark during the US hard-court season.

They should be in good condition. It's not as if any of them had extended runs at Wimbledon.

Konta’s interviewer was patronising,though;”Presumably you wish to win a slam..?”
I actually like that she gets shirty.On the Jonathan Ross show they edited out some tense moments, including one reply of hers which was something along the lines of,Are you really asking me that?!
The question was a fair one-she does have no plan b and has a meltdown when under high pressure.I’m just not sure that the time and place is immediately after losing the match.
She could have brushed the question aside with more sound bites but gave her honest response.

On the subject of manners, I am now very impressed with Novak and the cheers from the crowd when he missed were very unbecoming.
Of course I prefer Federer’s game, but the fans (?) of Wimbledon are a real embarrassment.

Goughy wrote:

On the subject of manners, I am now very impressed with Novak and the cheers from the crowd when he missed were very unbecoming.
Of course I prefer Federer’s game, but the fans (?) of Wimbledon are a real embarrassment.

I think the embarrassment is having courts so slow that a grinder like Novak can prosper instead of someone playing Tennis the way it should be; attackingly and the crowd knows that. It's frustrating to watch a game that used to reward attacking play go the complete opposite way, there isn't a chance in hell that Novak would get near Sampras during the 90's.

It’s not Djokovic’s fault though that the courts are slow.I will never disagree with the aesthetic assessment of Fed as a beautiful tennis player-but to compare most players’ game to his by this criteria and they will fall short ,including Nadal who is more of a grinder.Murray is the ultimate grinder yet I enjoy his game, and when his time came at Wimbledon I didn’t begrudge that he didn’t play tennis as creatively as Federer.As in most things in life, you play to your capabilities surely.
I don’t actually think that the crowd are connoisseurs of the game.Some of the ambivalence to Novak Djokovic is down to the fact that he’s not as easy on the eye as the other two, and that is sad!

Goughy. Well said. I was thinking of saying something similar myself and started posting only to stop half-way thru'.

Yes, the courts are slow these days. But at least it allows a contrast in styles. Djoko is never going to be the crowd pleaser that Rog is, or Rafa is. The only thing I think is a bit cringy, and I'm with Kyrgios on this, is Nole's attempt to be loved.

Contrast this with Sampras. He was not a charismatic guy or player. He was a great champion but his matches were so efficient as to be almost dull. He NEVER sought popularity. He just got on with it.

Perhaps, though, Djoko can take heart from the remark once made by Johnny Mac. He said the English crowds only take take to you when you start losing.

Agree with the above comments but I also wonder if anti-Serbian sentiment in the Western media has factored into his relative unpopularity.

I definitely think that him being Serbian is a factor.Navratilova was asked by Sue Barker about his relative lack of popularity and she said,” He has the Serbian thing”, meaning his looks I assumed,. I am glad he seems to have stopped that ‘bucket of love’ gesture as that was just weird and new-ages, and the lack of energy back from the crowd just put the lack of reciprocity in sharp relief

Sad news today that Peter McNamara has died, aged 64. He was one half of double specialists the Macs, with Paul McNamee.

What I'd forgotten was that McNamara was also a top singles guy, breaking into the top 10.

He and the other Mac followed on from some of the great Aussie doubles teams such as Hoad and Rosewall and Newcombe and Roche.

Later, we had the Woodies, with the Bryans inheriting their crown.