Agnieszka forces a three-setter, but Serena wins Wimbledon final


The 2012 Wimbledon final was predicted to be one-sided, but the collected Grand Slam final debutante Agnieszka Radwanska didn’t melt away and even came back from 6-1 4-2 down to win the second set. However, her fightback was bound to be short-lived given Serena Williams‘ superb level at this Wimbledon and the American got hold of her fifth Venus Rosewater Dish and her 14th Grand Slam trophy in singles.

Radwanska quickly lost the first set and found herself trailing 4-2 in the second, but then she converted the first break point she earned to level at 4-4, and then in the twelfth game of the second set she converted the second one to spice up the final with the third set. But even though Radwanska’s conversion of break points was a perfect 100%, she earned just those two chances, while Serena earned 15 and converted five, including two in the 37-minute third set to record a 6-1 5-7 6-2 victory.

The big difference between Agnieszka and Serena was also in the department of winners – Agnieszka hit 13 to Serena’s 58, and 14 unforced errors to Serena’s 36.

Serena’s Wimbledon 2012 run will definitely be remembered by her serve. She finished the tournament with a total of 102 aces, while only in the semifinal against Victoria Azarenka she scored 24 without making double faults. In today’s championship match, Acerena won the fourth game of the third set with four straight aces!

Agnieszka produced a good final, especially given her respiratory problems and runny nose, but Serena’s serve is unbeatable right now. In the post-match on-court interviews, Agnieszka said how these were the best two weeks of her life, while Serena made reference to the time she was hospitalized and how it’s a miracle that she’s back winning the biggest tennis title.

These are the players Serena defeated this fortnight: Barbora Zahlavova Strycova, Melinda Czink, Zheng Jie, Yaroslava Shvedova, defending champion Petra Kvitova, Victoria Azarenka and finally the 2005 junior Wimbledon champion Agnieszka Radwanska.

Serena will shortly get back to Centre Court and with sister Venus try to win the women’s singles doubles title against Andrea Hlavackova and Lucie Hradecka.


  1. I expected a lot easier win for Serena but anyway she confirmed the role of a favourite.
    Funnily enough, the one who will move more up in the rankings is Radwanska. Typical womens tennis, 😛

  2. It was great to have a women’s final without screaming,squealing or bad behaviour; don’ see there being too many in the near future but I can always hop.

  3. I’m very happy for Aga. Yeah, she lost, but it was her first GC final and she actually put up some good fight to the point of taking the 2nd set. So, great experience for her and I hope this was the first of many finals to come and she will win them.
    As for Serena… her serve is… well, I don’t really know what to call it. A nuclear weapon maybe. When she’s playing (and it was the same with all other players, not only with Aga) it’s like we can watch tennis only when the other person is serving and when Serena is serving we have ace… moving to the other side… ace… moving to the other side… There is simply no game, only ace after ace after ace.
    @Tulp: the doping is a a problem in every sport obviously. But in today sport there is a thin line between doping and taking “supplements”. But yes, there are some rules that should be respected and if Serena indeed was not tested out of competition in 2010 and 2011 she should not be allowed to play in WTA tournaments. But was she tested in 2012?
    The problem is that ATP, WTA and ITF seems unwilling to push the issue, maybe fearing that tennis would lose its opinion as clean, ‘white’, noble sport. Personally I think it’s stupid, because the suspicions are much worse than simply saying ‘yes, we have a problem but we’re gonna find a way to resolve it’. So, we have to wait, either for some honest people in the federeations/tennis associations or for the players who are not doping themselves to revolt against the situation.

  4. I read about WTA players being suspended all the time, most notably Wickmeyer.

    Unless folks have proof or accusations from a governing body, coach, doctor, I wish they would stop with the Serena’s on steroids stuff. I mean if you’re going to accuse someone of something that serious, you need more than a haunch.

  5. Maggie, I’m glad to find you (at least) as open-minded as ever. Well, that article is just a summary of the Serena case which was more thoroughly analysed in many previous posts (and comments) at the blog as the shenanigans were actually taking place. (The data for 2012 are still not officially known, that’s why they are not included. I, for one, wouldn’t hold my breath, though.) All in all, there’s a lot more about the ‘problem’ (and not, by any means, concerning Serena only!) to be found there in the archive; and there’ll be a lot more in the future too, since it is a very active blogger-cum-commentators-community which cares about the ethics of the sport – a worthwhile regular read, especially since it is as good as the only one of its kind really trying to do something to shorten our “wait for some honest people” to appear of themselves. Meanwhile, it at least helps put things and people in somewhat clearer perspective.

  6. I browsed a little bit this website/archive and while I agree that the doping problem in tennis exists, I think that the people who write on this blog are big fans of conspiracy theories. Whatever someone from the tennis world says, they consider it suspicious/ridiculous and a proof of doping. Exemple? Radwanska’s sick during Wimbledon, her coach says that they have to try and get her in shape by natural remedies only since most of the cold medicines contains illegal (for a tennis player) substances. And on the blog people starts laughing, basically saying that Wiktorowski’s laying. Only, Wiktorowski’s perfectly right. Being a great fan of gymnastics, I can’t help but think of Syndey Olympics and Andrea Raducan stripped of her gold AA medal because she took a cold medicine!
    Another exemple, they take the fact that a tennis player is serving about 200 hm/h as a proof of doping. I always thought that it was incredible speed too. But recently my coach brought to my practice a speedometer. My service was about 80 hm/h. But… I am playing tennis for about 10 months and while I’m getting better very quickly, the service is my weakest point and anyway I am still far from being very good. I am 1m58 tall and not very fit, ’cause before I started doing tennis I’ve never been doing much sport. So why a tennis player, very fit, tall and strong wouldn’t be able to serve 200 km/h? So speed service is not a convicing proof of doping for me.
    That’s the problem when the officials refuse to make things clear for everyone to see – it gives room to some really wild theories.

  7. Maggie: I, of course, did not mean that one should take everything on that blog for granted – far from it! There’s a lot of wild guessing by a number of commentators, as should be expected.
    But, there’s also a lot of undeniable facts to be found, such as many analyses of the available data which show only too clearly the perfunctory, sieve-like nature of the anti-doping regime of all the three institutions you yourself mentioned: the ITF, the ATP and the WTA.
    And then there’s a number of level-headed commentators who often reign the conspiracy-theorists in and vehemently defend the unjustly accused; such was, for instance, the very case of Radwanska’s medication you mention (but you probably missed that reaction).
    Now, as far as the serving speeds go: the discussions are not really about the limit to how fast the ball can be hit or not. They’re also not about the improvements a developing player (like yourself) can make. It’s about the uncanny improvements of an average service-speed a well-seasoned professional player suddenly shows: 15-25 km/h, – only to lose it again, come the new season (the case of Nadal up-to-2009, then 2010 [his annus mirabilis], and then “back to” 2011).
    The blog, admittedly, used to be even looser for a first few years, but it’s tightening up immensely for some time already – enough so, so as to attract the former chairman of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (Mr. Richard Ings) who more-or-less regularly chimes in with comments to share his rich insider’s experience and correct the wrong assumptions and/or “wild theories”.
    So, all in all, please don’t too easily throw out the baby with the bath water, without taking a good second look.
    (Believe me, I know – being one of those who modestly contributed to the blog’s development in the right direction by fighting back the all-too-eager/all-too-arbitrary statements and, especially, unfounded, impressionistic finger-pointing.
    P.S. By the way, there I’m known by another exotic nickname, and lately don’t join the fray too often, silently following the ever smoother course of the ship and “watching, watching breathlessly.”)


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here