Before the 24-year-old Italian arrived at the All England Club a fortnight ago, only nine men had mounted a successful defence of the singles title in the open era.

Earning a place on the roll call of back-to-back champions would put Sinner among elevated company, alongside Rod Laver, John Newcombe, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Boris Becker, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic and Carlos Alcaraz as one of the finest exponents of grass-court tennis in modern history. 

Yet the auspices were mixed for the returning champion. 

On a brutally hot day in Paris, a calamitous meltdown from two sets to love and 5-1 up against Argentina’s Juan Manuel Cerúndolo in round two of the French Open had left Sinner smarting. It was his second successive grand slam disappointment of the season, following a semi-final loss to Djokovic at the Australian Open in January that had derailed his bid for a third straight title in Melbourne. Yet those defeats bookended a four-month period in which Sinner was untouchable, compiling a 30-match winning streak that brought five consecutive Masters 1000 titles. 

It was impossible to know which version of the Italian would turn up at Wimbledon, but he arrived there facing questions about his form and fitness that would have been unthinkable only a few weeks earlier.

There was pressure, too. Anything less than a successful title defence would have left Sinner in the curious position of being a dominant world No 1 without being the current holder of a major title. That Alcaraz, his chief rival, was absent through injury for a second consecutive grand slam event would only have accentuated the paradox.

Given the circumstances, Sinner could probably have lived without opening his defence against the redoubtable Miomir Kecmanovic, a solid former top-30 player who embodied a quiet but growing belief in the locker room that the top seed could be beaten. That sentiment doubtless hardened when Kecmanovic briefly threatened a seismic upset, taking a two sets to one lead against Sinner before falling in five.

Yet, despite scorching temperatures in south-west London throughout the first week, Sinner did not drop another set en route to the final. Once there, the defending champion delivered the perfect riposte to his doubters, earning his fifth grand slam title with a 6-7 (7-9), 7-6 (7-2), 6-3, 6-4 victory over Alexander Zverev, the German second seed. 

The value of variety

After what happened in Paris, it was a tour de force of mental toughness, one that secured Sinner’s place in the modern pantheon of Centre Court greats. He now has a total of 100 match wins at the majors, where he is mopping up titles at the same rate as Djokovic, who likewise had five by the age of 24. Sinner also possesses an 80% win percentage on grass, something few would have predicted at the outset of his professional career, when he lost his first four matches on the surface (six from eight when qualifiers are included). 

A late developer who grew up in the Italian Dolomites, Sinner preferred skiing and football to tennis until his early teens. He has undeniably come a long way. But far enough to merit a place at the top table with McEnroe, Federer and company? That is another question. 

For all the undeniable excellence of his ball-striking and movement, for all his clinical mastery of the serve and return, the twin pillars of modern grass-court tennis, Sinner’s skillset is markedly different to that of his predecessors. What he does, he does with undeniable brilliance. His baseline game, which combines relentless aggression with virtually impenetrable defence, bears comparison with the best in history. Less apparent, however, is the variety of shot and powers of improvisation evident among other members of Wimbledon’s back-to-back club.

Laver is an obvious counterpoint. Like Sinner, the flame-haired Australian combined immense power off both wings with a destructive serve, weapons he famously deployed to hit his way out of trouble when things got tight. But it was with good reason that Laver was once introduced at WCT Tour events as “the man with the copper hair but a golden touch” – and it was not because he lacked finesse. As one might expect of the only man in history to complete the calendar year grand slam twice, the Queenslander was a complete player, as accomplished at the net as he was from the baseline, as capable of wielding the scalpel as dropping the hammer. For all his efforts to expand his arsenal, Sinner does not yet possess such variety.

It is not an isolated comparison; a similar versatility may be observed among others of Laver’s ilk. 

In an era when the lawns of the All England Club played significantly faster, making serve-and-volley tennis de rigueur, Borg reimagined his baseline game to spectacularly successful effect. The enigmatic Swede was neither a naturally dominant server nor a willing volleyer. But each year, he would retreat to the Cumberland Club in north-west London to hone his grass-court skills, eventually arriving in SW19 with a beefed-up delivery that he would gamely follow into the forecourt. Borg’s unrivalled athleticism – and the vagaries of a surface on which even a bad volley would stay low enough to be effective – more than made up for any technical shortcomings. Allied with a peerless return, a teak-tough mentality, and some of the best passing shots the game has ever seen, Borg’s adaptability earned him five straight titles.

So a talent for tailoring style to circumstance, for being able to force things from the net or mix it from the backcourt, has been a hallmark of all the great modern Wimbledon champions, even if some have inclined more towards one approach than another. Becker and Sampras reaped the rewards of their huge serves at the net. Federer and Djokovic won 15 titles between them, predominantly from the back of the court. But champions have a habit of finding a way, and each could do things differently when occasion demanded. Becker could hang with Ivan Lendl from the baseline, just as Sampras could live with Andre Agassi. Federer was a lethal volleyer; Djokovic became one. The one constant has been adaptability.

On Centre Court, then, variety is king. Newcombe, who bowed to no one in his eagerness to get forward, is the only real outlier among the select band to have defended the title. But like fellow net-rusher McEnroe – whom no one could accuse of lacking variety – the broad-shouldered Australian possessed a baseline game predicated on making the most of his attacking skills, particularly on grass. Whether driving a flat forehand into the corner or pinning his opponent back with a deep sliced backhand, Newcombe’s prime objective was to get to the net, where the real business of the match could be conducted. 

That is not to say that every successful title defence in the open era has been built on a diet of serve-and-volley, chip-and-charge, crush-and-rush. Such skills are on the endangered list, certainly relative to the days when the likes of Laver, Newcombe and McEnroe held sway. But Federer, Alcaraz and even Djokovic have all, to a greater or lesser degree, kept the tradition alive, if not as a go-to play, then certainly as a tactical weapon, a means to vary the method of attack and keep opponents guessing.

Why Sinner needs Alcaraz

Sinner, too, values diversity. 

Since last year’s US Open final, when he bemoaned his “predictability” after Alcaraz relieved him of both his title and the No 1 ranking, he has worked hard to expand his skillset, not least by sharpening his transition play and net game. The Italian nonetheless leans on those dimensions of his game sparingly, largely because Plan A is so good that other options only become essential when he is facing Alcaraz. 

This year’s Wimbledon final underlined the point: of the 275 points Sinner contested against Zverev, just 23 were played in the forecourt, barely half as many as the Italian attempted the previous summer against Alcaraz. In other words, without Alcaraz around, not even Zverev – the second best player in the world – has been able to force Sinner out of his baseline comfort zone. 

It might be argued that, having devised a winning formula, he would be mad to deviate from it. As Agassi famously remarked in his autobiography Open, the job is not to be the best in the world 365 days a year, but simply to be better than the guy you’re up against on a particular day. Sinner is out to win, not score marks for artistic impression. If he can ride his natural game all the way to the Wimbledon title, why bother trying something different? Yet as Agassi also observed – and Sinner knows all too well – “great things begin at the end of the comfort zone”. If and when Alcaraz returns with his wrist in fully functioning order, Sinner will need more.

Every great champion needs a foil, a player whose presence on the other side of the net drives them to the highest expression of their talent. McEnroe found that opponent in Borg. Stefan Edberg had Becker, whom he faced in three straight Wimbledon finals, winning twice. Rafael Nadal had Federer, who beat him to the title twice but could not quite do it a third time. 

The common thread in each of those historic rivalries was how the protagonists brought out the best in one another. So it is with Sinner and Alcaraz. The Spaniard has twice denied Sinner match points at a major before going on to win the title, first in an electrifying late-night quarter-final at the 2022 US Open, and then in last summer’s epic Roland Garros decider. Each time, Sinner came back stronger, never more so than when he wrested the Wimbledon crown from Alcaraz last summer. 

As is the way of it, that loss in turn prompted Alcaraz to redouble his focus and intensity. By the time he faced Sinner again, a few weeks later at the US Open, he was ready, rolling past his rival in four sets. Cue another turnaround by the Italian, who went on to defeat Alcaraz in the title round at the season-ending ATP Finals, before claiming his seventh win in 17 meetings between the pair in April’s Monte Carlo final.

Such back-and-forth is the lifeblood of all great sporting rivalries; in its absence, Sinner has for the most part been clinically efficient, but rarely inspired. His results have done the talking. With his title win in Rome, for instance, he became the only player other than Djokovic to complete a full house of Masters 1000 titles, a feat he achieved a full seven years earlier than the Serb. As things stand, his status as the world’s best player is indisputable – and yet, beyond Alcaraz, who is capable of forcing him to produce his very best tennis?

Not Zverev, it would seem. Despite the excellence he showed in taking advantage of a depleted field to land his first grand slam title in Paris, and the conviction with which he advanced beyond the fourth round of Wimbledon for the first time, the German went into the final on the back of nine straight defeats against Sinner. His unfettered jubilation at taking the first set hardly spoke of a deep-seated belief that he could win two more, and so it proved, Sinner rebounding to win a match that, though high on technical excellence, offered little by way of spectacle and stardust.

The numbers told the story. Sinner dominated every meaningful metric, winning 80% of points on his first serve to Zverev’s 72%, and 65% on his second to 59%. He also hit more winners (58 to 49), made significantly fewer unforced errors (25 to 45), and won a higher proportion of points at the net, despite venturing forward less often.

But for all the technical proficiency on show, the match itself was a dud, certainly in comparison with the extraordinary drama and emotion delivered by the women’s final between Linda Noskova and Karolina Muchova. A contest in which the first break point does not arrive for almost three hours is unlikely to keep an audience on the edge of their seats. Instead, the final felt like a throwback to the 90s, when big serves held sway, and the artistry and imagination of previous eras seemed irredeemably lost.

And as the thunderbolts were hurled, and Sinner once again asserted his superiority over an opponent he had mauled in just 58 minutes a few weeks earlier in Madrid, the nagging sense that only Alcaraz could truly test him grew ever stronger.

Do any of these quibbles matter? Sinner and his fanbase can point to two straight Wimbledon titles and say not. But if the Italian’s presence in the back-to-back club feels incongruous, it is partly because his game lacks the completeness of the modern grass-court greats. He is, undeniably, a wonderful, multi-surface player, a multiple major winner and dominant world No 1 whose place in the tennis Hall of Fame is already assured. But we can admit all that and still acknowledge that his grass-court game does not yet possess the multitudes of a McEnroe or Federer. 

At 24, there is ample scope for that to change. Even Djokovic, whose game Sinner’s most closely resembles, needed time to evolve into a player for all seasons. 

Nor should it be overlooked that, while Sinner already belongs to an elite group of multiple major winners, his body of work does not yet have the depth of most of his peers in Wimbledon’s back-to-back club. Five of the nine men who have successfully defended the title in the open era are in double figures for grand slams won. Of the remaining four, Newcombe, McEnroe and Becker have 31 major singles finals between them, while Alcaraz, like Sinner, remains a work in progress (albeit one with a career grand slam to his name). Sinner is not yet the player that, all things being equal, he is on course to become; for now, the scale of his achievements outstrips the rate of his development.

Yet that can only bode well. A second straight Wimbledon title is merely the latest piece of evidence to suggest that Sinner’s best years are ahead of him. For now, though, he is a champion cast in a different mould to his predecessors.

The post Jannik Sinner retained the Wimbledon title. Does it put him among the grass-court greats? appeared first on Love Game Tennis.

“Linda is unflappable,” Ivana once explained. “She has this temperament from my husband. I think this trait is a big part of her success. She just doesn’t care. Whether it’s break point or match point, she’s always calm. It’s not that it doesn’t matter to her, but she can detach herself from it.”

On Saturday at the All England Club, the 21-year-old Czech demonstrated the truth of those words. 

Facing her compatriot Karolina Muchova in the Wimbledon final, Noskova stormed into an apparently unassailable lead only to suffer a catastrophic second-set collapse as Muchova, belatedly rousing herself, survived five championship points to force a deciding set. 

It was a devastating blow for Noskova, one that inevitably recalled the Centre Court implosion against Steffi Graf that left Jana Novtona weeping on the shoulder of the Duchess of Kent in 1993. But she would not allow her title challenge to be defined by it. Instead, remarkably, Noskova calmly regrouped to crown an afternoon of high drama and high emotion with a 6-2, 5-7, 6-3 victory that earned her a first grand slam title. 

The one sadness was that her mother, who died from cancer two summers ago, was not there to witness it. Afterwards, as Noskova thanked her watching father, Drahoš Nosek, together with the rest of her family and team, Noskova ensured she was not forgotten.

“There is also one more person I would like to thank, which is my mum,” said the Czech, her voice trembling. “I definitely would not be standing here without her, so thank you.”

‘Sad years, happy years, sweat’: what shaped Linda Noskova’s Wimbledon win

After blowing a kiss skywards, Noskova briefly reflected on “all the sad years, all the happy years, all the sweat and blood put into this”. It was a nod not only to her own dedication, but also to the sacrifices made by her parents as they strove to foster her talent on limited resources. To the years when the family was split asunder as Noskova’s ambitions took her from the bucolic village of Bystřička, where she grew up, to the city of Prerov, an hour’s drive away, where her mother cleaned offices to make ends meet while Drahoš remained at home, where he worked for a railway firm. 

“It was all worth it,” reflected Noskova.

That much is undeniable. Noskova becomes the third Czech champion in four seasons, following the victories of Marketa Vondrousova in 2023 and Barbora Krejcikova a year later. She is also the youngest winner since 2011, when Petra Kvitova defeated Maria Sharapova. Both were on hand to witness the occasion from the Royal Box, where nine-time champion Martina Navratilova was also among the usual glittering array of luminaries. 

The scrutiny could not have been more intense and, for the first half of what would be, at two hours and 28 minutes, the third longest women’s final in history, Noskova met the challenge head on. Her serve, the destructive fulcrum of her run to the final, was once again near-flawless. Noskova navigated the opening set without facing a break point, dropping just a single point behind her first delivery, while her smooth power and impressive movement allowed her to dictate the baseline exchanges. In the rare moments she wasn’t exceptional, Noskova was rock solid.

How Karolina Muchova struggled in her second major final

The same could not be said for Muchova. It is widely acknowledged that, on her day, the 29-year-old has the tools to defeat any player in the world. Here, however, she struggled to find her range in the face of Noskova’s excellence. By the time she did, the cause was all but lost. In that sense, Muchova’s second grand slam final mirrored her first, at the 2023 French Open, where she fell behind by a set and a break against Iga Swiatek only to force a decider after her game belatedly clicked into gear.

You would have got long odds on history repeating itself with Noskova leading 6-2, 5-2. Muchova had struggled throughout to summon the free-swinging power on her forehand that got her over the line from match point down against Coco Gauff in the semi-finals (a feat of escapism she also performed against Aryna Sabalenka at the same stage of her final run at Roland Garros, curiously) and as she served to stay in the contest, that wing once again faltered. 

Muchova twice survived after netting forehands to present Noskova with championship point; by the time she saved a third with a beautifully executed drop shot, the mental and emotional shackles were visibly starting to loosen. Her serve was gathering force. She was moving with newfound freedom. The variety and creativity that make her so dangerous were finally starting to flow. At the other end of the court, the opposite was happening. 

“It was very tough for me,” Noskova later reflected. “My hand kind of froze at certain moments. My feet were not as quick as they had been before.”

‘That’s insane’: Linda Noskova’s battle to remain in the second set

Up to then, moments of peril had been rare for Noskova – and when they came, she had been ready. Facing her first break points of the afternoon early in the second set, she snuffed out the danger with bold, decisive serving. As Muchova threatened to prolong the contest, she did so again. Noskova had already fended off two break points by the time Muchova nailed a glorious backhand winner to bring up a third. The younger woman responded with a thumping 112mph ace; then, when an error gifted Muchova a fourth opportunity, she produced another. 

“That’s insane,” mouthed the watching Navratilova.

Not so insane that Noskova couldn’t do it again, sending down an untouchable 114mph delivery to complete a stunning triptych of aces. Indeed, it was not until Muchova’s seventh break point that Noskova finally yielded, sending a forehand wide. By then, a double fault had cost her a fourth championship point, and a fifth would go begging in the next game. It was a torrid sequence for Noskova, one that would culminate with the loss of five straight games. Coming from a woman who normally wears the mask of impassivity so lightly, the anguished cry she emitted as the set slipped away spoke volumes.

So too did the manner in which she put her fingers over her ears as Centre Court rose to acclaim Muchova’s fightback. Yet, if Noskova’s impulse was to block out the reality of the moment, moments later she would be confronted by it in the most palpable form. As she retreated for a bathroom break, the Czech was greeted by the sight of the Venus Rosewater dish, the trophy awarded to the champion. Beside it sat the more modest silver plate awarded to the beaten finalist. Noskova’s resolve hardened.

Linda Noskova: ‘I’m going to leave my soul on court’

“The first step I took off court, the trophies were there,” said Noskova. “I was ​looking at the big one. I was like, ‘I’m taking this one, no matter what. I’m going to leave my soul on court.’”

If Noskova was replenished, Muchova was depleted. It had taken a monumental effort to restore parity. The momentum was hers but, after an exacting semi-final win over Gauff, did she have the physical and emotional reserves to capitalise?

“I think I started really slow,” Muchova reflected. “On the other hand, Linda started really strong, really good serving games. She played really fast. I was kind of looking for myself. It took a lot of power and strength out of me, I would say, to get back in that second set. I gave it my all. 

“The people were cheering on me; I felt it, I felt the support. I felt the momentum in the second set. It was definitely nice that it happened. It took, as I said, some strength out of me.”

As is so often the case in tennis, the opening game of the set was pivotal. Noskova had to stem the tide of games against her. Three break points for Muchova instead threatened to continue the surge. But Noskova held firm and, in the next game, some solid defending earned her a break. The tone was set; she would not be caught.

Noskova: ‘I think she would be proud’

Two years after her mother died on the eve of Wimbledon, Noskova’s victory was punctuated by a palpable sense of catharsis. No two people experience the anniversary of a parent’s death in the same way, but for most it is a time freighted with deep personal significance. So it appears to have been for the Czech, who revealed afterwards that her mother had been on her mind on the eve of the final. As a final service winner confirmed her triumph and she fell to the grass, her body heaving with emotion, those thoughts surfaced anew. 

“I had a moment yesterday night when I was thinking about her,” said Noskova. “Sadly, she passed away two years ago, at the beginning of the tournament. So just to be sitting here and looking at the title two years later, it was a big moment for me. But I think she would be proud. I think I made her happy today.”

The post How Linda Noskova found calm amid the storm to win Wimbledon appeared first on Love Game Tennis.

That is nonetheless the price the British governing body must pay for its stand, after the ATP fined the organisation $1m (£820,000) and warned it faced possible expulsion should similar restrictions be imposed next summer.

Wimbledon’s decision to decline entries from the likes of Daniil Medvedev and Aryna Sabalenka was prompted by the Putin regime’s invasion of Ukraine, which is supported by Belarus. 

The All England Club’s stance was met with a show of unity from the LTA, who said the participation of Russian and Belarusian nationals risked “providing a boost to these regimes when there is an unprecedented international effort to isolate them and sanction their actions”. It meant that players from the affected countries were unable to compete in tournaments at Queen’s Club, Eastbourne, Surbiton, Nottingham and Ilkley.

Both Wimbledon and the LTA have since been fined six-figure sums by the WTA, whose players were denied entry to tournaments in Nottingham, Birmingham and Eastbourne. Legal appeals have been mounted against both fines.

In a robust statement, the LTA accused the ATP of a lack of empathy with Ukraine and said it was considering its legal position.

“The LTA is deeply disappointed with this outcome,” said an LTA statement. “The ATP, in its finding, has shown no recognition of the exceptional circumstances created by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, or the international sporting community and UK Government’s response to that invasion.  

“The ATP appear to regard this matter as a straightforward breach of their rules – with a surprising lack of empathy shown for the situation in Ukraine, and a clear lack of understanding of the unique circumstances the LTA faced.”

The governing body warned that the financial punishments imposed by the ATP and WTA would necessitate a rethink on the staging of events scheduled for next year.  

“The financial impact of both this fine and the WTA’s fine will have a material impact on the LTA’s ability to develop and host tennis in this country,” the statement continued.  

“For example, we had intended to host a number of ATP Challenger level events to give more opportunities to lower ranked players in the first quarter of 2023 and will now not be able to do this, particularly given the possibility of further fines.  

“We will carefully consider our response and we await the outcome of our appeal against the WTA’s decision and sanction.” 

Both the ATP and the WTA stripped Wimbledon of ranking points in response to the ban, a decision that had significant repercussions for players from both organisations. Novak Djokovic, the men’s champion, would have finished the year level with Carlos Alcaraz at the top of the world rankings had he received the 2,000 points ordinarily awarded to the champion. Elena Rybakina, meanwhile, currently ranked 22nd, would have finished the year inside the top 10 and qualified for the season-ending WTA Finals.

Given that she represents Kazakhstan but was born in Moscow, Rybakina’s victory made a mockery of the All England Club’s desire to avoid a propaganda victory for the Kremlin. In the club’s defence, however, the ban was imposed under heavy pressure from the British government, whose stance was reiterated by the culture secretary, Michelle Donelan.

“Over the past year, the vast majority of the international sporting community have stood shoulder to shoulder in condemning Putin’s unprovoked and barbaric actions in Ukraine,” said Donelan in a statement.  

“The UK has taken a world-leading role to build this international response. We are clear that sport cannot be used to legitimise this deadly invasion, and that athletes representing the Russian or Belarusian states should be banned from competing in other countries.  

“Despite widespread condemnation, the international tennis tours are determined to be outcasts in this, with investment in the growth of our domestic game hampered as a result. This is the wrong move by the ATP and WTA. I urge them to think carefully about the message this sends, and to reconsider.” 

Britain remains the only country to have ostracised Russian and Belarusian players, who have been able to compete under a neutral flag elsewhere. The ban was branded discriminatory by both the ATP and the WTA when it was announced.

“We believe that [the] unilateral decision by Wimbledon and the LTA to exclude players from Russia and Belarus from this year’s British grass-court swing is unfair and has the potential to set a damaging precedent for the game,” an ATP statement said in April.That decision is now set to exact a significant financial toll as well.

The post British tennis fined $1m over ban on Russian players appeared first on Love Game Tennis.

Twelve days after revealing that he needed multiple anaesthetic injections to get through the French Open, where he won his 22nd major earlier this month, Nadal has confirmed his intention to play at Wimbledon after undergoing treatment to deaden nerve tissue in his troublesome left foot.

The Spaniard, who overcame the same chronic injury to win the Australian Open in January, said he would travel to London next week following an encouraging week’s practice on the grass courts of the Mallorca Country Club.

“My intention is to play at Wimbledon,” said Nadal.  “The treatment and the week of training gives me hope, and I wouldn’t go if I didn’t intend to play. 

“I haven’t played at Wimbledon for three years and I’m looking forward to it. I don’t know what can happen in five days. I’m cautious, but what has happened so far gives me hope that I can be present.”

Nadal had previously expressed uncertainty about his prospects of competing at Wimbledon, indicating in the aftermath of his victory at Roland Garros that he would not risk playing on grass with his foot numbed. The 36-year-old has suffered from Mueller Weiss syndrome, a rare degenerative disease that causes pain in the navicular bone, since he was a teenager. 

However, after travelling to Barcelona last week for radiofrequency ablation treatment, which uses heat to reduce nerve pain, he is hoping to play in the pre-Wimbledon exhibition event at the Hurlingham Club next week.    

“With the treatment in the nerves, strange things happen in your foot,” said Nadal. “You feel numb in some areas and not in others.

“What was done in Barcelona, where I was twice, is not a 100% immediate fix but changes are noticeable. I still have strange sensations, if I’m honest, but the joint pain that did not allow me to support myself has decreased.

“The week that I have been practising here after my treatment has been positive. I experienced some improvements. Different feelings on my foot, honestly, but I take that like a positive thing.”

Nadal, champion at the All England Club in 2008 and 2010, has never previously arrived in SW19 with the grand slam in play, largely due to the perennial dominance of Novak Djokovic at the Australian Open. He has not reached the final since 2011, when he was beaten by Djokovic in his fifth final. Nadal pulled out of Wimbledon last year after his foot injury forced him to miss virtually the entire second half of the season, but reached the semi-finals in his two most recent appearances, in 2018 and 2019.

“I hope to be competitive,” said Nadal. “Grass is a very difficult surface and, when you haven’t played for years, as is my case, any round is difficult. The start of the tournament is going to be vital for me.”

The pursuit of the third leg of a calendar-year slam will not be the only difference this time around for Nadal, who also confirmed that he and his wife Maria Francisca Perello are expecting their first child. Nadal said he did not anticipate that his immediate schedule would change in light of the news. 

“If everything goes well, I’m going to be a father,” he said. “I’m not used to talking about my private life. We live more peacefully with a lower profile. I don’t expect that my life will change much with it.

“At the moment, all has worked well for me, and I am not a friend of changing what works well. My intention is to play Wimbledon, rest, then Canada and then be ready for the US Open.”

Meanwhile, defending champion Matteo Berrettini is through to the last four at Queen’s Club following a 6-4, 6-2 win over Tommy Paul of the US. The second-seeded Italian, the champion in Stuttgart last week, will face Botic van de Zandschulp after the Dutchman saw off Alejandro Davidovich Fokina of Spain, 6-2, 6-4.

In the top half, former champion Marin Cilic, the seventh seed, continued his renascent form with a 7-6 (7-2), 6-4 victory over Finland’s Emil Ruusuvuori.

“I am taking it step by step. I am trying to keep my form up and my level,” said Cilic, who also reached the last four at Roland Garros. “Every match is a challenge. I am focusing and taking it step by step. 

Cilic will play Filip Krajinovic after the 48th-ranked Serbian ended the fairytale run of Ryan Peniston, the British wildcard who made light of his world ranking of 180 with a straight sets win over top seed Casper Ruud earlier in the week. Krajinovic reached his second semi-final of the season with a 4-6, 6-3, 6-3 win.

The post Nadal targets Wimbledon as foot injury eases appeared first on Love Game Tennis.

The ban was imposed by the All England Club last month in response to the Putin regime’s invasion of Ukraine. It was immediately branded “discriminatory” and “unfair” by the WTA and ATP, whose shared disappointment has now culminated in a retaliatory move that will effectively reduce Wimbledon to an exhibition event.

“The ability for players of any nationality to enter tournaments based on merit, and without discrimination, is fundamental to our tour,” said the ATP in a statement. 

“The decision by Wimbledon to ban Russian and Belarusian players from competing in the UK this summer undermines this principle and the integrity of the ATP ranking system. It is also inconsistent with our rankings agreement. Absent a change in circumstances, it is with great regret and reluctance that we see no option but to remove ATP ranking points from Wimbledon for 2022.”

The WTA likewise took aim at the All England Club for abandoning the principle of accepting entries based on ranking, arguing that the decision ran counter to the organisation’s founding principle of equal opportunity.  

“As a result of the AELTC’s position that it will not honour its obligation to use the WTA rankings for entry into Wimbledon and proceed with a partial field not based on merit, the WTA has made the difficult decision to not award WTA ranking points for this year’s Wimbledon championships,” said Steve Simon, the WTA Chairman.  

“The stance we are taking is about protecting the equal opportunities that WTA players should have to compete as individuals.  

“If we do not take this stance, then we abandon our fundamental principle and allow the WTA to become an example to support discrimination based on nationality at other events and in other regions around the world. The WTA will continue to apply its rules to reject such discrimination.”

The tours have been backed by the ITF, which will withhold points for Wimbledon’s junior and wheelchair events.

The All England Club expressed “deep disappointment” over the measures, which they described as “disproportionate” given that the decision to impose a ban was influenced by British government guidelines. 

“Given the position taken by the UK Government to limit Russia’s global influence, which removed automatic entry by ranking, and the widespread response of Government, industry, sport and creative institutions, we remain of the view that we have made the only viable decision for Wimbledon as a globally renowned sporting event and British institution, and we stand by the decision we have made,” said the All England Club.

“As we have previously stated, after careful consideration against a variety of factors, and bound to act in accordance with the directive guidance from the UK Government, we came to two firm conclusions that formed the basis for this decision.  

“We were not prepared to take any actions which could risk the personal safety of players, or their families. We believe that requiring written declarations from individual players – and that would apply to all relevant players – as a condition of entry in the high-profile circumstances of Wimbledon would carry significant scrutiny and risk.  

“In addition, we remain unwilling to accept success or participation at Wimbledon being used to benefit the propaganda machine of the Russian regime, which, through its closely controlled state media, has an acknowledged history of using sporting success to support a triumphant narrative to the Russian people.  

“We therefore wish to state our deep disappointment at the decisions taken by the ATP, WTA and ITF in removing ranking points for the Championships. We believe these decisions to be disproportionate in the context of the exceptional and extreme circumstances of this situation and the position we found ourselves in, and damaging to all players who compete on tour.”

The ATP accepted that Wimbledon had faced “difficult decisions” in light of the British government’s stance, but took issue with the suggestion that the club’s hands were tied by political considerations. 

“We note that this was informal guidance, not a mandate, which offered an alternative option that would have left the decision in the hands of individual players competing as neutral athletes through a signed declaration,” said the ATP statement.

The All England Club has consistently stated its opposition to written declarations that might jeopardise the safety of players and their families. 

With players who reached the latter stages of last year’s tournament last year unable to defend their points, the tours’ response to Wimbledon’s ban on Russians and Belarusians will have significant repercussions for the world rankings. 

Novak Djokovic, the defending champion, is likely to lose his position as world No 1 when the 2,000 points he earned in 2021 drop off, while Matteo Berrettini and Karolina Pliskova, the men’s and women’s runners-up, will both drop out of the top 10.

The post Wimbledon stripped of ranking points over ban on Russian players appeared first on Love Game Tennis.