Skip to main content

Thoughts on the 2018 Aus Open Women's final

The 2018 Aus Open women's final pitted two top WTA players who have both been #1 and both been to two previous slam finals, but unsuccessfully.  At last, one of them would remove that stigma.  The match pitted the #1 seed against the #2 seed, for the first time in a women's slam final since Aus Open 2015 (at the French it's been since 2013, at Wimbledon since 2002, and the US Open since 2013).

Overall I thought it was a well-played match. Caroline came out solid and determined. It took Halep a while to find her rhythm, but when she did I felt that she was controlling the match. I felt she was playing more aggressively and the fate of the match was on her racket. After going down 1-4 in the first, the rest of the set was 5-3 for her (to make it 6-7). Then she took the second 6-3, then she was up a break 4-3 in the 3rd. All she had to do was keeping doing what she was doing... which was making a lot of winners and an uncharacteristic amount of errors. It is was what her new aggressive mentality dictated. Yes, she made more errors, but it meant she was in control. She was going after her forehand and forcing errors constantly. I saw Caroline very much as the counterpuncher for most of the match... the reactor. She was forced to become an opportunistic reactor, hitting winners only if the opportunity presented itself.

But with Halep up a break and serving at 4-3, Wozniacki took an injury time-out and it completely changed the match. She did not lose another game. I was astounded at how passively Halep played after that time out. She had been dictating all night (other than the first 5 games) but suddenly she stopped. She was looping the ball in with no power. Maybe she was tired or injured, both looked probable. But maybe it was a brain injury... What had got her to that point, up a break in the third, she suddenly stopped doing. She stopped going after her forehand, she stopped trying to be the aggressor, stopped controlling the match on her terms... and handed it to Wozniacki. Woz did well to close, but to me it looked like Halep collapsed in the last 3 games. Maybe the injury time out was enough to make her think... to worry... to start to play conservatively. Maybe it was smart from Caroline. Whatever the case, I was disappointed with the last three games from Halep, because up to that point I thought she deserved to win because she was controlling the play.

But in the end it was Woz who stayed calm, who stayed on course and who claimed the title. I am so pleased for Caroline to finally shake the slam monkey and join the pantheon of slam champions. She's now in the conversation about the best players. It adds a whole layer of credibility to her career. It's hard to say if it will unleash a slam-winning spree for her, now that the pressure is off. Probably not. Probably she will always struggle against more aggressive players. But she can hold her head high now in any company. Congrats to Caro!!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Case for Rod Laver as GOAT - 25 Dec 2010

The Case for Rod Laver Two grand slams.   When one considers the near impossibility of winning a calendar year grand slam in this day and age, the thought of one player winning two boggles the mind.   It’s difficult enough to win the career slam – only 7 men have ever done it and only 4 in the Open era.   Winning a non-calendar slam is even more difficult and many great players have won three in a row and fallen just short:   like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Pete Sampras. So Rod Laver should be an open and shut case for the greatest of all time.   But it’s not that simple.   His first grand slam is really negligible and doesn’t count.   It was an amateur slam won in an era when the best players were professionals.   Especially in the 1960’s the pros were gaining more and more credibility.   The sheer number of pros was increasing as more and more tournaments began to be established for pro players.   Laver was by no means considered the best player of 1962 and some experts didn’t

2016 Wimbledon Women's Preview

Wimbledon 2016 –Women’s Preview What does Garbine Muguruza’s victory at Roland Garros mean for tennis? Will she be able to play at a high level for Wimbledon?  Is she a legitimate contender for Serena Williams’ role as #1?  Is Serena done winning majors, or is she just ‘resting’? Muguruza’s victory at Roland Garros was surprising but not a complete shock.  Beforehand, she was deemed fourth-most likely by the bookies to take the tournament, pegged at 10:1 odds.  Anytime we welcome a new slam champion to the fold is a cause for celebration... especially a young one like Garbine, only 22.  She displaces Petra Kvitova as the last-born person to win a slam. Muguruza is one of 11 active players to have won a singles major:  Serena, Venus, Sharapova, Azarenka, Kvitova, Kuznetsova, Ivanovic, Kerber, Schiavone, and Stosur.   (There would be four more if it were not for the retirements in the last four years of Li, Bartoli, Clijsters, and Pennetta.)  These 11 players are probabl

The Case for Bjorn Borg as GOAT

The case for Bjorn Borg   The case for Bjorn Borg as GOAT will always be interesting because the last half or third of his career didn’t happen.   But what he accomplished in the short time he played was remarkable.     He became the youngest man ever to win a grand slam title (to that time) when he did it within days of his 18 th birthday at the French Open in 1974.   No man has won more pro matches, titles, or grand slams by age 24 than he did.   He also has the best match winning percentage at the slams, with Nadal and Federer a distant 2 nd and 3 rd .   In addition to 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles, he only ever lost twice at the French Open, winning there 6 times, 4 times consecutively, and 3 times consecutively he followed up his French victory with the Wimbledon title 4 weeks later – the French-Wimbledon double.   No one else has done that.     His head to head record is top notch.   In the pool of all men who have won a grand slam title in the open