Right about now, Henry IV Part 1 was supposed to start on BBC2 television, and I had my TV hard disc timed to gobble it all up. But luckily, I did not actually go out, and have thus been able to learn that Henry IV Part 1 has been postponed, until such time as the Wimbledon Men’s Doubles Final reaches its conclusion. Final set, and a Danish bloke and – get this – an English bloke – are leading 4-2. This is not a movie. This is the real thing. Even weirder, the English bloke reads like a spelling mistake. He’s called Johnny Marray. Like all of England that ever pays any attention to tennis, I am saying, who is he? And: how about that for a funny name, just one letter away from the Scottish bloke. Marray is now serving. For the match. 0-15. Pity the poor commentators.
Tomorrow, that same Scottish bloke, Andy Murray, has the seemingly hopeless task of defeating the titanic Roger Federer, in the Men’s Final.
15 all.
30-15.
Strange how the long awaited Great Hope of British tennis is now, following years of Henmaniacal disappointment, Scottish. For Andy Murray is indeed the first Brit to get to the Wimbledon Final, apart from Paul Bettany, since King James 1 lost in four sets in 1607.
30 all. 40-30. Match point.
I’m kidding, but the last British finalist was called “Bunny”, and he lost his final long before most of us around here were born. He was a shorts pioneer, apparently. Blog and learn.
In 1932 he decided that the traditional tennis attire, cricket flannels, weighed him down too much. He suffered from jaundice and was handicapped by the weight of his sweat-soaked long trousers in hot weather.
“They’ve done it!” So. One down. One to go? For a Brit like me, tomorrow is a win win. If Murray follows Marray’s example and wins against Federer, hurrah! If he loses, then it’s: Oh yes, that was when Scottish Murray lost and English Marray won. For a Scotsman, imagine the horror if Murray loses, as I fear he will. Already, I imagine they are cursing Marray for pissing in their soup.
In extreme contrast, the Scots seem entirely to have lost the knack of playing football. Like all English people who have not been actively and successfully dodging the news, I know that England won the World Cup in 1966. (I remember it well. I watched it live on television, in Finland, while on a bicycle trip.) But what I also remember is that in, I think, about 1967 (yes), Scotland famously beat England at football, and it was that same World Cup winning side that they defeated. Names like Denis Law and Jim Baxter are still remembered, and not only in Scotland. Only weeks after that, Glasgow Celtic became the first British club to win the European Cup, the direct precursor of the the current European Championship. And remember that this was the time when if the name of the club was “Glasgow” Celtic, that meant that most of the people in the team were, if not actually from Glasgow, at least from very close to it. Which is not how it is now at all. (Scroll down to the bottom there to see the names of the Chelsea team who beat Bayern Munich in the final of the Euro Cup this year.)
Man U (also featuring Dennis Law, I seem to recall) won the European Cup a year later, but it was Celtic that won it first.
But now, look at the Great Britain Olympic soccer team. Not one Scotsman in it. And no matter how many foreigners they have in their teams now, neither Celtic nor Rangers seem ever to get far in the Euro Cup these days.
Henry 4/1 will now start at 10pm, exactly one hour later than advertised.
Is Andy Murray British or Scottish?
Anybody who’s a fan of beautiful tennis should be rooting for Federer tomorrow. He’s also not surly like Murray, and not an unsportsmanlike time-waster like Djokovic or (especially) Nadal.
I suspect that one of the reasons for Scottish football’s decline is that neither Rangers or Celtic play in the English Premier League and that therefore they’ve been cut off from the latest developments in world football.
Tim Henman wasn’t quite good enough to win Grand Slam tournaments, although certainly he was a huge improvement over the days when following the “British Number One” at Wimbledon meant watching the number 78 in the world be eliminated on the first Tuesday. Murray is one of those players who is good enough to win Grand Slam tournaments and you would expect to win a couple at some point in his career. However, his misfortune is to be playing at the same time as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, who as players are all simply awe inspiring. (One has to feel sorry for Andy Roddick, too, who did win one US Open but apart from that had a career that consisted largely of being beaten repeatedly by Roger Federer).
Murray probably won’t get a better chance to win Wimbledon than this year. He hasn’t had to play Nadal or Djokovic, and Federer is maybe not quite as good as he was. The odds are still against him though.
The weather is not nice in London this morning, so the final might be partly or entirely played with the roof closed. I’m not sure what effect that will have on the game.
Michael:
One doesn’t have to feel sorry for Roddick, considering what an utter prick he can be on court: for example, he had a nasty temper tantrum at the US Open a few years back because the line judge mixed up whether he foot-faulted with his left or right foot. (None of the Youtube videos seem long enough to do the tantrum justice, and the play in question was a foot fault.)
The roof being closed would help Federer’s serve immensely, as the court seems to play like a faster indoor court than the somewhat slowed down grass it’s been. Old (by tennis standards) Federer has after all won the year-end championships at the O2 in London the past two years.
One more reason to root against Murray: if he wins, the paroxysms of emotion will be even more obnoxious and retch-inducing than when the drunken blankety-blank Diana Spencer died in her car accident back in 1997.
I think I’ll wait until watching sailboat races on TV becomes too stressful for my aging heart.
…and Federer is maybe not quite as good as he was.
Heh! 🙂
The too good to hurry mint gave it his best. It just wasn’t good enough, and I’m afraid it will never be. He flung himself around the court with magnificence, diving rolling and tumbling to regain what he had lost initially; his first serve. His second serve is pathetically weak and invites opponents to return the ball wherever they please, and they do. Hence he is worn out much faster than they, however old they might be.
I suspect that Murray will win a major (maybe even Wimbledon) one of these days. His game still needs work (notably the second serve, which is both weak and extremely predictable, a bad combination). But with Lendl coaching him that can be overcome, and the rest of his game is very strong. And I disagree with Ted: Murray was indeed surly and emotionally unstable on court in his early years, but he definitely has grown up since then. He did a good job of controlling his emotions today. It’s his misfortune to be in the same cohort as Nadal and Djokovic (Federer will be gone in a few years), but he will certainly have his opportunities, and his moments. I look forward to it.
Alas, it was not to be. Murray’s second serve is a cream puff. As a veteran tennis analyst, who’s never played a single point of the great game, I keep catching myself thinking “needs a bigger second serve, if he can hit the first one big, should do the same with the second one”. But major changes in one’s game seem practically impossible.
At twenty, you’re done. (Link) In tennis, pro tennis, you’re done at 15. You can improve your fitness, mental approach (but even that’s not a given, natural temperament and all that), polish a few things, but the mechanics are pretty much fixed.
I never knew that you could change from a plucky Brit to a defeated Scot just by walking on and off a tennis court.
Is this something to do with border regulations in the UK or what?
Tim: Well, I said that Federer is maybe not quite as good as he was. The odds are still against (Murray) though.. I think what happened is still pretty consistent with that. Murray won a set, after all.
Laird: It’s his misfortune to be in the same cohort as Nadal and Djokovic (Federer will be gone in a few years), but he will certainly have his opportunities, and his moments. I look forward to it.
Well, yes, but Federer is his bogey man so far. He’s played in (and lost) four Grand Slam finals, three of them to Federer (and one to Djokovic). Between them, the big three have won every Grand Slam tournament since 2005 except one. One has to be very luck as well as good in such circumstances.
Now the British can go back to what they do best- losing gracefully!
Odd, that the Scots don’t win when playing but sure can coach, if the EPL is anything to go by.