Wimbledon takeaway: the major stage still favors experience over youth

I found Tim Henman on the Players’ Lawn staring into space. I put my hand on his shoulder to bring him out his trance. Henman, four times a Wimbledon semifinalist, had just finished commentating on Novak Djokovic’s five-set victory over Roger Federer for BBC television.

“I’m in shock,” were Henman’s first words. “How many times has Roger Federer got to 40-15 serving for a match and lost? Very, very rarely. And on grass? Never. I don’t understand what happened.”

Henman was not alone. There was an feeling of bewilderment—mingled, it must be said with disappointment—at the outcome of a thrilling if far from perfect duel that had seen the loser play the better tennis and actually win more points by a wide margin—218 to 204—but fail, ultimately, to lay his hands on the Wimbledon trophy for the ninth time.

That sounds harsh on Djokovic who has now won four of the last five Grand Slams played. He did it, despite returning so poorly that he never held a break point on the Swiss serve in the first three sets. Yet, by winning two tiebreakers, he led by two sets to one. And then of course he went on to win the first fifth set tiebreaker in Wimbledon singles history. If ever there was an example of the need to win the big points, this was it.

But it also reflected glowingly on Djokovic, the player and the man. Federer was playing better for much of the match and was benefitting from the support of at least 80% of the Centre Crowd crowd. Yet, Djokovic was able to block that out, pretending the calls of “Roger, Roger” were really “Novak, Novak” and proving maybe more than he has ever done before that he is a competitor of the most unbending intransigent kind; a warrior of iron who simply refuses to accept defeat. And for that, Djokovic must be held in the highest regard.

The result provided one of several incongruities that became a feature of a splendid Wimbledon, blessed by good weather and increased crowds on every single day over 2018. One concerned age but more of that later. The most incomprehensible concerned tactics.

Before the blockbuster semifinal in which Federer and Rafael Nadal served up a grass court banquet fit for Royalty (the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge were there to accept), the majority of experts were agreed on one thing: the longer the points, the more chance Nadal would have of winning. In fact the opposite turned out to be true. As rallies of 20 to 30 strokes criss-crossed the Centre Court lawn, it was the mobile, fleet-footed Federer who proved the steadier in execution and won the vast majority of riveting duels. Nadal kept shaking his head, perplexed.

In the final, we all thought that Federer would need to beware of Djokovic's renown ability on the return of serve. In fact, in one of the numerous stats that went against him, the Serb won 64 points when receiving to Federer’s 79.

So many ex-players I spoke to were predicting a Djokovic win in four sets that the result seemed cut and dried when Djokovic led by two sets to won. But the defending champion’s concentration seemed to fly away somewhere in the fourth just as the Swiss began to play near faultless tennis.

In the fifth it seemed just a matter of time before Federer would crack the Djokovic serve but, in fact, it took quite a while thanks to the obduracy of Novak’s unbending mind set. But arrive it did at 7-7. Pressuring his opponent with clinical approach shots, Federer finally broke serve and swept to 40-15 on his own at 8-7. Two match points. On grass. One the court that had been the scene of so many of his greatest triumphs.

But, for no apparent reason, Federer wasted the first with a sloppy forehand that drifted wide. Then he tried the approach shot that had been working so well but, perhaps due to a sudden tightness in the arm, it fell a bit short and Djokovic was able to sweep away a forehand cross court winner. Two chances had come and gone. They never returned.

Following a different line of thought, how long will Djokovic, Federer and Nadal to dominate Grand Slam finals? How long can they hold the fort against the gathering, and very talented, army of youth? We keep asking this question and, at the Grand Slam level, the answer stubbornly seems to lie in seniority and experience.

All sorts of exciting things happened with youth in the early rounds, highlighted, of course, by the astonishing arrival on the world scene of 15-year-old Coco Gauff, who reached the fourth round of the women's event after beating Venus Williams in the first. But when you check the ages of the players who went deep into the second week, youth was almost totally absent. David Goffin at 28, was the youngest men’s quarterfinalist with five of the last eight being over 30. A round back, only 23-year-old Matteo Berrettini and 21-year-old French newcomer Ugo Humbert were under 30.

So what about Stefano Tsitsipas, Alexander Zverev, Karen Khachanov, Daniil Medvedev, Frances Tiafoe, Taylor Fritz, Denis Shapovalov and his 18-year-old Canadian compatriot Felix Auger-Aliassime? Maybe next year. A few reached the third round but none showed the necessary experience to make a real impact.

The breakthrough player turned out to be Roberto Bautista Agut who is no newcomer. The 31-year-old Spaniard cut such a swathe through the draw that he did not drop a set until he faced the other surprise package, Guido Pella, in the quarter finals. Beating the previous year’s finalist Kevin Anderson and then Milos Raonic gave Pella his best results at Grand Slam level. But Pella is 29. Do you have to be that sort of age to get within touching distance of Grand Slam glory?

The answer would seem to be in the affirmative in the women’s game as well. Serena Williams was outplayed in the most startling fashion by an inspired Simona Halep in the final but, at the ages of 37 and 27, both are hugely experienced competitors. So it comes down to that word again. Experience. In doubles, too. Barbora Strycova, with her partner Hsieh Su-wei won the title and both have been around a long time. The win enabled the unseeded Strycova to back up her splendid semifinal showing in singles (she lost to Serena) by rising to No 1 in the world in doubles. Like Hsieh, Strycova is 33.

Youth, it seems, will just have to wait.