Wimbledon: Serena Williams and the End of Certainty

GERMANY’S SABINE LISICKI IMPOSES HER WILL ON SERENA WILLIAMS IN THE FOURTH ROUND

By Bill Simons

In tennis, we know certain things.

Maria will grunt, Rafa’s muscles will glisten, Roger will be graceful. And Ms. Serena Williams, it seemed, would certainly win the 2013 Wimbledon.

After all, pundits and players alike were saying Serena was the best player of all time. Sorry ‘bout that, Martina Navratilova and Steffi Graf. (Young Laura Robson even said that Serena was “obviously the best of all time.”) In fact, at no other time in recent history has there been a player more certain to win a Slam. Gamblers wanted little part of it. To make $45 you would have had to bet $100.

After all, Ms. Williams had won three of the last four Slams and the Olympics. Her serve is the nastiest shot in the history of the women’s game. She had just celebrated her 600th win. She was on a 34-match winning streak—a major accomplishment in this highly-competitive sport—and had only lost three matches in over a year. She was making lesser-ranked opponents look like club players. Just ask 42-year old Kimiko Date-Krumm, who lost her third-round match to Williams 6-2, 6-0.

As of late, even Serena’s top foes couldn’t put a glove on her. World No. 2 Maria Sharapova hadn’t beaten her since Bush’s first term, and Serena has generally humbled world No. 3 Victoria Azarenka as if she had something against the Belarus native.

So the headlines asked the obvious: “CAN ANYONE STOP SERENA’S VICTORY STROLL?” The most popular (if not obvious) analysis of the week was the glib  claim that only Serena Williams can beat Serena Williams.

But the glory of sports is that anything can happen, and sure enough, there was the superb grass player Sabine Lisicki out on a court she adores, hitting out, exuding joy, and zoning.

To the shock of all,  against Serena, it was Lisicki who was imposing, both with her serve, which is  rather dandy, and her powerful groundies. The young 23-year-old German seemed fearless, and more than willing to risk all and hit out.

In contrast, Serena was uncharacteristically safe. This was not the dynamo who—except for a close French Open battle with Svetlana Kuznetsova—had pulverized the opposition at Roland Garros, as well as Madrid and Charleston; nor was this Serena the dominating American who hadn’t lost a set all tournament, giving up only nine games in three Wimbledon matches.

Instead of a torrent of winners off the ground, Serena gave us foot faults, slammed rackets, inexplicable drop shot errors, and curious (is this in slow motion?) movement. When she had the easiest of overheads, she made a hash of it.

Bottom line (and yes, the tabs couldn’t resist spewing forth nasty commentaries on her posterior), Serena was broken twice in a row to lose the first set 6-2.
But Serena is fierce, a fighter you don’t want to cross. Predictably, she counterattacked, and her groundies quickly found new bite. She let loose a string of volley winners and overheads that induced fear.

Here, at last, was vintage Serena, who takes most everything personally and seemingly can step up her game at will. Even luck was on her side. Reporting on one shot by Lisicki, Radio Wimbledon said the ball “thought about bobbling over the net but decided to come back.”

Good luck or bad, the Serena Express seemed like it was back on its solid, imposing rails.

At last, a Wimbledon which had time and again crushed all logic was on the verge of making sense. Yes, we realized there would be no Federer-Nadal quarterfinal. But with Serena up 2-6, 6-2, 3-1 and 40-15, at least fans could hold out hope for a Serena-Laura Robson quarter.

But then the scoreboard informed crestfallen Centre Court fans that Robson, Britain’s teen darling, was on the brink of losing to the Estonian Kaia Kanepi. Plus, Williams’ level suddenly dropped. Lisicki gained heart and started to take charge of rallies with flat, powerful shots. Thanks to a critical let cord, and a drop shot error and two errant backhands from Serena, the German broke back to 2-3.

The contest was back on serve, and we once again had a competitive match. Ultimately, it was Lisicki who demonstrated the will and belief needed for any triumph. “I put more pressure on her. I started to be more aggressive,” she later reported. Suddenly, a worried Serena began to to push, playing with a tentative passiveness we hadn’t fully seen since her shocking first-round loss to Virginie Razzano at the 2012 French Open. Certainly, it wasn’t a factor that for the first time in her career her Dad, her Mom, and her sister Venus were all absent. Or was it? And did the fact that she was such a prohibitive favorite come into play?

It didn’t matter. At crunch time, Lisicki was in control, and appropriately, on her second match point she gained total mastery over a shockingly defensive Williams. Deep into a rally, she blasted a decisive forehand winner to claim a stunning 6-2, 2-6, 6-4 win. Incredibly, it was the fourth time in five years that Lisicki has beaten the standing French Open champion at Wimbledon: Svetlana Kuznetsova, Li Na, and Maria Sharapova were her past victims. Tearing up, the emotional German admitted it was an amazing win: “I’m still shaking,” she said.

So is tennis. This is a Wimbledon that has shaken this sport to its core.

***

PATRICK MOURATOGLOU AND THE LAW OF STREAKS—A COACHES’ VIEW:

After the match, both French- and English-speaking reporters caught up with Serena’s coach and friend, Patrick Mouratoglou. Here are some of his comments:

Question: What was the key to the match?
Patrick Mouratoglou: The key was Serena. It’s not to say that Sabine [Lisicki] didn’t play a good match, because I think she played a great match. But Serena [had] a bad day today. She really had the keys, because she had many occasions in [the] first set where she had a few break points that she didn’t make, and especially in the third. [where] she was serving from 5-2 and 4-3. She had a lot of occasions and didn’t [take] them. So, of course, Lisicki played her match, she’s playing her best game on grass. She’s moving better , she has a big serve, she goes for the winners really fast in the rally, and the surface makes this type of game more efficient. And she played the match she had to play. But still, Serena had the occasions to close the match and she didn’t take them, so that’s the key.

Q: Serena is known for being the best mentally at crunch time.
PM: She’s also human. And she was [having] a bad day, obviously. She didn’t play well today at all. The shots were not going as fast as usual [off] of the racket, she was not moving as well as usual. This put a lot of pressure on her, because when you don’t feel your game, it’s more difficult. And maybe she was tired. I don’t know exactly. But the fact is, she didn’t find a way to [win] the key points of the match. She’s human. You cannot expect anybody, even if she is the best player of all time, to be perfect in all the matches in all the year. She’s not and she will never be. Her low level is better than it was before, but she’s human and she’s going to lose some matches, and we have to be ready for that.

Q: So, again. Serena lost because …?
PM: It was a mix of things: Lisicki who played a great match today and is a dangerous player on grass and played the match she needed to and then you had Serena who was quite a bit below her usual level and didn’t, above all, know how to take the chances she had. Even in playing at a middling level she had a lot of opportunities but she did not know how to seize them probably because she was not having her best.

She had won five titles and 34 matches in a rown.
A/ It had to stop sometime. The law of streaks is they end sometimes. We knew it was going to end. We didn’t know when. It’s today. It’s not the end of the world, just a loss and it reminds us that this is a game and nobody is unbeatable … I always said this tournament was too close to Roland Garros. The two tournaments that are the most different. If there are two tournaments that should have [more] time between them it should be these; [they’re on] two completely opposite surfaces with completely opposite footing. And Serena played so well at Roland Garros and was so good on clay, it took her a little more time than usual to adjust to the grass. Perhaps … it’s perhaps an explanation why it’s not easy to get started strongly again right after Roland Garros.
Q: What about the streak?
PM: She’s not a machine. It was obvious at one moment or another she was going to do a match that was not as good as the others and she would be beatable and Lisicki played the match she needed to play and had the weapons to beat her. It happened.

Was fatique a factor. It’s a long year?
A. I don’t know. Perhaps. I’ll tell you in the next few days, we’ll see how she bounces back. I know she’ll ask me to train again starting tomorrow. For sure. But there is fatigue, sure, with the year she’s had, all these victories.  Mais bon, [but it’s good]  it had to happen sometimes, some defeats. This is not a coup d’arret, [an achievement that is thought to be very good, because it is very difficult] it’s a loss. There will be others
Did you feel that this day was coming?
A. Not really. When she played against Kimiko Date, it was a trap match, because [it was] not the kind of game she likes to play. She knew Kimiko had played a good match against Venus, and was the kind of player who bothers her, she really played well against her and was solid since the start of the tournament. I did not feel an off day was coming but generally we don’t feel them coming.
Is this this the start of problems for Serena?
A. No, no. There were perhaps some technical details that went off … [but] it’s not for me to say. Those are things we are working on and that were improved and deteriorated a bit while we were here, but apart from that I felt she was playing well since the start of the tournament. She was serving very well, so no it’s difficult to see this coming. She was not less good than usual, she was playing better than the same stage of Wimbledon last year.
Was it something physical?
A. No, for once it was not a physical problem today. It was perhaps. I think if she would have gotten through this round she could have played well all the way to the end of the tournament. A day when you’re not quite as strong, it happens in almost every tournament. She had a day at Roland Garros when she was much less good than the others and she played a match that was much more anxious than usual that day. It was not just Kuznestova. And she really bouncd back after that and I thnk this match could have been very useful for the rest  of the tournament. It’s not that I refuse to accept the defeat – I think we did what we needed to do. Simply she’s not a machine and a day when she’s not as good and the girl plays a perfect match, she can be beaten.