Ever since I watched Bjorn Borg beat John McEnroe for the title in 1980 I've wanted to see a British tennis player win Wimbledon. Last year I did and it was great. Now it's come round again. The best we can hope for is that Murray wins it again, but it's again, it's not for the first time in what seemed like thousands of years, it's just again, it won't be the same as the first time. It's more likely he won't win it, which is even less fun. And it happens every year. It's not like the World Cup or the Olympics, which you can completely forget about for a couple of years before enjoying the long, slow build up, the anticipation of something special. It's every single year. Without Sky and without the determination to watch every friendly, even an avid football fan may not see Brazil or Argentina or any of the African nations play a single game between one World Cup and the next. There's a very good chance England won't play any of them. British heroes like Chris Hoy and Steve Redgrave could be almost completely absent from our screens between Olympics, other than to pick up the sports personality of the year award. Global superstars like Usain Bolt run a few times every year, but they make sure they limit how often they race their closest rivals, saving such encounters for when it really matters. Even domestic football, which has plenty of games, only dishes out a couple of trophies once a year. Andy Murray has played well over a dozen tournaments since he won Wimbledon, competing against the same set of blokes every time. Exactly the same tournament is played a couple of times a month, it's just the venue changes. When we hadn't won Wimbledon for so long it mattered, now that we have it's lost a lot of its appeal, particularly as if the player you follow doesn't win it doesn't really matter as he can win a different tournament against all the same rivals in a couple of weeks time.
You could argue that the different court surfaces and conditions make the majors a different challenge which favours some players over others - Nadal obviously is the clay court expert (and no slouch on grass). But it is just the same 4-5 players making the semi-finals in each major. Although these four (Nadal, Djokovic, Federer and Murray) are among the best tennis players ever.
So it doesn't matter if he doesn't beat Djokovic in the Wimbledon final because he might beat Nadal in an indoor tournament in Qatar next month?
It's a post about my thoughts on Wimbledon and tennis. I dare say your feelings won't be the same. We can take it apart, line by line, and argue about the detail if you like, but I don't think it would achieve much. If it's a subject you're interested in I'd much prefer to hear your opinion on the whole. For the record, will the next tournament Murray plays be as prestigious as Wimbledon? Unless he waits until the US Open to play again, which is unlikely, no it won't. But that wasn't really my point.
Players are only remembered for the Grand Slams that they win. Read yesterday about the prize money - losing 1st round players get £27,000. Not bad, I know many will have had to go through the qualifying tournament but shows how the lowly ranked Brits can still make a decent living.
True, but the next one in the US is only 2 months away and we've only just started Wimbledon. Roland Garros finished just over 2 weeks ago. And we've had Queens since then.
I would say that Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world. The Americans and the French might try and disagree but I think the rest of the tennis watching public would back that up from Canada to Serbia to New Zealand. Obviously it has more significance in this country, particularly as we had never had a winner in the open era. If Murray wins this year it will not be as significant or as exciting as his first win but it would still be a first as he would then be the first to retain it and I sincerely hope he does. The bloke has really grown on me over the past couple of years. If you're say that familiarity breeds contempt then I can't agree with that. Most sporting events are annual and as they fluctuate in quality, the level of excitement is dependent on the strengths of the competition, not the fact that there was a tournament in 2013. You like cycling. Do you think the tour will be less exciting this year because British riders won the last two or because the giro was only a month ago? Not for me. You also see Barnsley at least 23 times a season. If we were to win all 23 games I'm sure you'd enjoy the first as much as the last. In fact we'd all be frothing at the mouth with excitement fir the next game. Unless I've completely missed your point.
No, you haven't, you nailed it and put up a good argument. However, there are a number of differences with tennis. I will see Barnsley play 23 games this season, more if I go to some away games, but all those will be part of the same competition. I might see us play a few more in the cups, but we are only entered in 4 competitions for the entire year. A tennis player can get through 4 competitions in a month. I will still enjoy this year's Tour and the fact that the Giro took place recently will not detract from it, but, on the whole, the riders going for the win at the Giro were entirely different to those who will be battling it out at the Tour. Those playing Tennis in Paris are exactly the same players as those now taking part at Wimbledon who will then all go on to the USA (and many minor competitions in between). Cycling has three big annual events, but few competitors go for the victory in all of them. All football's major competitions come to a head in April and May. Tennis has 4 grand slams, plus the masters series, the Davis Cup, the ATP world tour finals, exhibition events and the Olympics every 4 years all of which attract the same competitors to play in them. And, if they like, they can compete in the doubles and mixed doubles too. Every month there's a competition with all the top players in it. I like cycling more than tennis, so I can enjoy the Tour even when a British cyclist isn't in with a chance. Having said that, when Bradley Wiggins won, it was, for me, the best Tour I'd ever watched. It wasn't the same when Froome won last year. I wanted him to win and celebrated when he did, but the same excitement wasn't present like it was when Wiggins did it. It was back to being a sport I really enjoyed rather than me being desperate for a Brit to win it. I was actually more impressed with Quintana. Because I don't enjoy tennis as much as cycling, when that desperation for a Brit to win was fulfilled, there wasn't a great deal left to attract me to the sport. I like Andy Murray, I still want him to win, I'll watch some of his games, but it won't be too disappointing if he gets knocked out, he's already won it and he'll only have to wait a couple of months until he's playing another grand slam. When Barnsley are knocked out of the FA Cup we have to wait another year, when our chances of promotion are scuppered by November we have to wait another year, if Chris Froome has a bad day in the mountains he'll have to wait another, when England lost to Uruguay they knew they'd have to wait another 4 years, if Murray loses he'll be playing exactly the same competitors at a Masters tournament in a couple of weeks and have another chance at a grand slam in a couple of months. For me, that's not the same.
I think a lot of people in this country are Wimbledon fans rather than tennis fans and I include myself in that. I will watch quite a bit of tennis in two weeks then barely give it a thought for the rest of the year. I have a general awareness that the other Grand Slams and the O2 championships are on but I don't really pay attention to them. I think that's the same for a lot of people in this country and they see wimbledon as the only tournament that really matters. That's why we get wimbledon fever but no one ever gets Flushing Meadow fever. Not on this country anyway.
