Parsing Wimbledon

In the end, Carlos Alcaraz beat Novak Djokovic in the Wimbledon final.  It was a very close five-setter.  How did it happen?  What does it mean?  Where does the field stand?  And on the second last day, Marketa Vondrousova pulled a rabbit out of a hat and took the ladies’ title.  Is it an indication of more to come from her?

Just before the finals, I expected that Ons Jabeur and Djokovic would win.  Granted it was possible to imagine scenarios in which Vondrousova and Alcaraz won, but the odds and bookies agreed, the favourites were Ons and Novak.  So what went wrong for them?

 

The Women

Jabeur had one of the most remarkable runs in recent memory to get to this slam final.  She’d not had a strong year.  She did win the 500 in Charleston and make the quarters of Roland Garros, but otherwise, for a world #2, where she finished 2022, her results had dropped her to #6.  But as Wimbledon dawned she became a woman on a mission. She mowed over one of the most difficult draws I can remember, taking out three of the top four pre-tournament favourites.  She took out consecutively, Kvitova – two-time Wimbledon champ and recent winner on grass in Berlin, then Rybakina – the defending champion who had beaten Ons in last year’s final, and finally Sabalenka – the #2 seed and pick of many pundits to win.

The one favourite Jabeur didn’t need to face was world #1 Iga Swiatek.  Swiatek was taken out in the quarters by a resurgent Elina Svitolina.  Despite being less than what I and many others predicted for Iga, this was still her best grass court result and ended a run of 14 consecutive match wins for her, 7 of which were on grass.  So I think the Iga fans will see this as a positive development.  And it will be right to expect her to go even deeper in the coming years. 

But I do come away with the feeling that Iga’s dominance over her rivals is fragile.  Sabalenka was only one match away from taking the #1 ranking, and in fact still leads the yearly race for #1 by 770 points.  I do wonder how much longer Iga can stay near the top.  Will the bubble of self-belief burst for her at some point?  If the Netflix documentary “Break Point” revealed anything about Iga to me it was how tightly wound and nervous she can seem. 

She’s still the best on clay, as three French crowns in four years reveal.  And now with 68 weeks at #1 in the books, she’s shown the will to stay on top.  But I don’t get the impression that the distance between her and the field is as big as it was, say, for the Big Three of men’s tennis.  The upcoming US Open will be very revealing. She’s defending champion there but this time it feels like she has some legitimate rivals in Sabalenka, Rybakina, and even Jabeur.

Ons Jabeur has now made three slam finals.  This is oddly paralleled by Casper Ruud who made his third slam final last month at Roland Garros.  Will both make the US Open final again this year?  I was really surprised at how poorly Jabeur played in the final.  It looked to me that she wanted it too much.  She came out trying to force the play.  In response, Vondrousova put up a wall, and Jabeur ended up making something like 37 errors.  Jabeur did not keep her cool.  She was over-eager and not calculating enough.  This may have been her best chance to claim a slam title.  I wonder if she will ever be able to cross the line.

And what about the champion… is Marketa Vondrousova here to stay?  At first glance this may seem like a meteoric event – a one-off – a one-hit wonder.  But she is still young – only 24.  And it’s not her first major final.  She made the 2019 French final, losing to Barty; and she also made the Olympics final in 2021.  But the consistency has not been there.  Her average result in slams is 2.6, which means she averages second or third round.  This result propels her into the top 10 and should bring a new level of belief.  I won’t expect a deep run at the US Open, but next year in 2024 will be her chance to show if she can stay at the top. She’s younger than Rybakina and Sabalenka, but I don’t see as much potential, or at least consistency.

 

The Men

There weren’t too many surprises early on in the men’s draw. The semis were exactly as I predicted.  Jannik Sinner finally made a slam semi, and Christopher Eubanks and Roman Safiullin debuted in the quarters. However the revelation of the men’s side was the performance of Carlos Alcaraz.

By winning the Queen’s tournament on grass Alcaraz put himself in the mix of challengers for the title.  But after seven Wimbledon titles for Djokovic including the last four in a row and three final-round wins over Federer, it seemed very unlikely that Novak would be unseated.

After Djokovic won the first set, the task seemed near hopeless for Alcaraz, since Djokovic has the best record in the Open Era after taking the first set.  The second set went to a tiebreaker, and again, Djokovic was notable for having won his last 15 tiebreaks in slams.  But Carlos dashed both records. What is so significant about this is that Alcaraz broke through the impenetrability of Djokovic’s mentality.

This is the first time (since Del Potro) we’ve seen a young player beat a member of the Big Three in a slam final.  Alcaraz only just turned 20 and he already holds two slam titles.  There are only two players in the Open Era (since 1968) that have won three or more slams by age 20, Borg and Wilander, and two in the pre-open era, Rosewall and Vines.  Moreover, Alcaraz still has two chances to add to his tally at age 20. 

Alcaraz is also setting records in the rankings.  He is the youngest player in the computer ranking era to achieve 20 weeks at #1 and the youngest of all time to achieve yearend #1, just pipping Wilfred Baddeley who was slightly older when he finished yearend #1 in 1891. The numbers clearly show that Alcaraz is a special talent.

All indications are that much can be expected of Alcaraz’ future.  Many slam titles are likely for him.  Of course we don’t know what rivals will arrive to challenge that.  There are other young players like Sinner and Holger Rune who appear very capable, and there may be others we do not yet know.

And of course there is also Novak Djokovic.  While it is possible that we have already witnessed Djokovic’s last slam title, I think he will likely win again.  Djokovic was very close to winning this final and he will be hungry for more.  He has always shown the resilience to find a way to win after setbacks.  Can he do it again?  Especially at the site of ten titles at the Australian Open?  I relish the thought of an intense rivalry between Djokovic and Alcaraz, both vying for the biggest titles.

However, the mere presence of that doubt that Novak may never win another indicates something significant – a feeling that a torch has been passed.  The era of the Big Three has ended and a new era has begun.  This is not to say that the Big Three will not win more slam titles, or that they may not linger at the top of the sport for another year or two.  But finally, we can say that a new talent has arisen that is worthy of replacing the old.

At this point I make Alcaraz and Swiatek (barely) the favourites for the US Open.  But that may not happen.  There will be drama, there will be excitement, there will be tennis!