Way i read what you said was that it was the first love, love win in the Ooen era? Open era began in 1968. Out of the four majors Graf annihilated Zvereva in the 1988 final at Roland Garros.
Sheply,I'm not getting into a stupid thread tit for tat.Yes she played poorly today and her opponent was superb but she was clearly very distressed and in a bad place mentally which you would expect.I was merely pointing out that Croft could have been a bit more considerate.
Don't be daft. Losers always get interviewed it's part of the post match. She's still done better than the other 126 that didn't make the final and got a brilliant payday. I loved the final. One of the best for many years. We got to see a very good player at the top of her game with the first double begal since 1911. History making for the open era.
How? What else could she have said to her? She adopted the right tone and gave Anisimova time to compose herself.
Don’t feel sorry for her. She is £1.5m better off than 2 weeks ago. First round losers “win” £66k. I am going to apply for a wild card entry next year.
Yes. A final doesn't have to be close to be good. We saw something that's never happened in the open era. Something that's not happened for 114 years. That should be celebrated. Being able to see something so rare it's once in a lifetime. Far better than the final today another boring one with one of the usual two winners.
Whilst I appreciate it was the first for her on grass, Iga won her sixth slam title, at 24. If she’s not a usual winner, who is? It was a terrible final. Completely uncompetitive. Historical though, as you say. I can’t wait for the men’s final later. The best two players in the world going at it again, just a few weeks on from one of the greatest slam finals ever seen. Hoping Carlos makes it three on the spin. Vamos!
You're calling it as better than the men's final today? Before it's been played? Ok. It's got the makings of being a proper close match, could be a classic. The 2 best players in the world going at it. But, yh, you go for it calling a one-sided 6-0, 6-0 match better based entirely on the history it made.
I prefer variety. The women have had 9 different champions in a row and yesterday was history making. The men it's going to be one of the same two names that win fora 7th slam in a row and one is a drugs cheat. I love Tennis but rather watch the Cricket.
Yesterday’s women’s final was like watching paint dry I guarantee today’s men’s final will be a classic,not their fault no one can get near them.the French final was a thrill a minute bring it on,**** the cricket.
Calling Sinner a drug cheat is just so simplistic, and not befitting of the facts. Have you actually read what happened? Yes he had a trace of a banned substance in his body, and he accepted that it was his responsibility as to what is in his body, it's a strict liability. But there's mitigating factors, and believable explanation as to how it came to be there. Edit - I'd also point out your double standards, you were giving it large about Swiatek's historic win yesterday, but she is as much a 'drugs cheat' as Sinner. All over the place man, as standard.
Ignoring Dreamy’s usual left-field opinions, this is indeed proving to be the classic we hoped for. Just tennis from another planet at times.
Was just about to post the same. I don't understand how anyone could prefer a 6-0, 6-0 rout. After 35 minutes it was over as a contest and the only question remaining was whether she would win a game. This one is outstanding. It's up to rest of the men's tour to reach this level.