Kevin Anderson vs John Isner - Wimbledon SF 2018
- Thread starter Checkmate
- Start date
Isner got spooked. He lobbed a lazy forehand right back to him, as if he was distracted or just being nice
marc45
G.O.A.T.
Boris BeckerVerified account @TheBorisBecker 3m3 minutes ago
The Man... @KAndersonATP @Wimbledon 6h38min #SouthAfrica
The Man... @KAndersonATP @Wimbledon 6h38min #SouthAfrica
If Anderson wins the final it's the greatest win in the history of the sport, assuming the other semi doesn't go another 4 hours. He effectively played an 8 set match on the back of a match that went 13-11 in the 5th against Federer. To beat Nadal or Djokovic coming off that is as close to impossible as you can get.
marc45
G.O.A.T.
New Yorker:
Wimbledon 2018: Kevin Anderson Didn’t Win His Match Against John Isner; He Survived
By Louisa Thomas
7–6 (6), 6–7 (5), 6–7 (9) 6–4, 26–24. Ninety-nine games. Six hours, thirty-six minutes. To say that Kevin Anderson won the match, beating John Isner, seems misleading. Anderson survived.
It was hard to watch, harder to look away. Both Anderson and Isner are extremely tall—the South African is six feet eight, the American six feet ten—and their games are built around their massive serves. Both have strong forehand, too, and underrated all-around games that have produced new highs in recent months—a U.S. Open final for Anderson, a Masters title, in Miami, for Isner—but neither was built for rallies. For this match, the final scoreline was an exaggeration of a reasonable prediction.
There were a few pretty moments—Anderson outstretched in full flight, flinging forehand that caught the opposite corner; Isner cruising toward the net, deftly hanging half-volleys, but mostly the points were bang-bang, serve-return, point over—or shorter. The two men combined for a hundred and two aces.
It had the iterative quality of a nightmare. Neither man could break the other; neither man could be broken. It was impossible to give up the match, but the effort it took to prolong it had begun to seem unbearable. As the games mounted, Isner in particular looked miserable. His shoulders slumped, his gait was staggered. His large eyes looked haunted. It was impossible not to think of the eleven-plus-hour match he had played at Wimbledon against Nicolas Mahut, in 2010, which Isner won 70–68 in the fifth—a match that left both players bruised and blistered. That match is celebrated as one of the remarkable moments in tennis—and, for sheer endurance, it is a remarkable achievement—but even for the victor it would be better forgotten. Earlier this week, he referred to Wimbledon as a “house of horrors.”
Isner served served first in the set—normally an advantage, since, as the players traded holds, it meant playing from the front instead of behind. Around the 17–17 mark, though, as he shuffled to the service line, I had the distinct impression that it was more of a burden. Each service toss was an exercise in masochism. Holding serve would mean that he would still have to play on—and have to break Anderson’s nearly unreturnable serve. But losing serve was not an option; not only because it meant losing but because it also meant playing on. Even giving up would have meant not a sudden death but a slow bleedout. So, repeatedly falling behind 0–30, he would find those tiny reserves still left, rear back, and slam the ball back into play.
Which is not to say that Isner, no matter how much he was suffering, ever considered giving up. He was playing for a chance to play in the final of Wimbledon, and he doesn’t seem the type to surrender under any circumstances. Still, from his demeanor, it seemed he was bearing on because he had no choice. Anderson finally broke through in the fiftieth game of the fifth set—a result that seemed, for some time, inevitable.
As the royal box flashed by on the screen, I found myself thinking of the Queen, set to meet Isner’s compatriot Donald Trump later that day, and of the Prime Minister, Theresa May, who was at that very moment miserably taking part in an impossible test of endurance, gritting through Trump’s nasty denigrations. Isner, as it happens, had said that it would be “awesome” if Trump came to watch him, a fact that I tried to forget as I watched him, adding to the endless tallies of a sports fan’s spiritual compromises.
It was an ugly match. There was no way around it. And yet the last note of the match left me feeling, somehow, hopeful. Anderson was both too tired to celebrate and too mindful of the loser. Interviewed as he left the court, Anderson looked almost embarrassed to be accepting congratulations. His mind was on the man he had beaten. “At the end, you feel like this is a draw between the two of us,” Anderson said. “John’s such a great guy, and I really feel for him, because if I’d been on the opposite side, I don’t know how you can take that, playing for so long and coming up short.” It was a show of empathy, generosity, and selflessness by a man who had every right to tout himself—a display that felt like a rare and urgent rejoinder to the moment we find ourselves in.
Wimbledon 2018: Kevin Anderson Didn’t Win His Match Against John Isner; He Survived
By Louisa Thomas
7–6 (6), 6–7 (5), 6–7 (9) 6–4, 26–24. Ninety-nine games. Six hours, thirty-six minutes. To say that Kevin Anderson won the match, beating John Isner, seems misleading. Anderson survived.
It was hard to watch, harder to look away. Both Anderson and Isner are extremely tall—the South African is six feet eight, the American six feet ten—and their games are built around their massive serves. Both have strong forehand, too, and underrated all-around games that have produced new highs in recent months—a U.S. Open final for Anderson, a Masters title, in Miami, for Isner—but neither was built for rallies. For this match, the final scoreline was an exaggeration of a reasonable prediction.
There were a few pretty moments—Anderson outstretched in full flight, flinging forehand that caught the opposite corner; Isner cruising toward the net, deftly hanging half-volleys, but mostly the points were bang-bang, serve-return, point over—or shorter. The two men combined for a hundred and two aces.
It had the iterative quality of a nightmare. Neither man could break the other; neither man could be broken. It was impossible to give up the match, but the effort it took to prolong it had begun to seem unbearable. As the games mounted, Isner in particular looked miserable. His shoulders slumped, his gait was staggered. His large eyes looked haunted. It was impossible not to think of the eleven-plus-hour match he had played at Wimbledon against Nicolas Mahut, in 2010, which Isner won 70–68 in the fifth—a match that left both players bruised and blistered. That match is celebrated as one of the remarkable moments in tennis—and, for sheer endurance, it is a remarkable achievement—but even for the victor it would be better forgotten. Earlier this week, he referred to Wimbledon as a “house of horrors.”
Isner served served first in the set—normally an advantage, since, as the players traded holds, it meant playing from the front instead of behind. Around the 17–17 mark, though, as he shuffled to the service line, I had the distinct impression that it was more of a burden. Each service toss was an exercise in masochism. Holding serve would mean that he would still have to play on—and have to break Anderson’s nearly unreturnable serve. But losing serve was not an option; not only because it meant losing but because it also meant playing on. Even giving up would have meant not a sudden death but a slow bleedout. So, repeatedly falling behind 0–30, he would find those tiny reserves still left, rear back, and slam the ball back into play.
Which is not to say that Isner, no matter how much he was suffering, ever considered giving up. He was playing for a chance to play in the final of Wimbledon, and he doesn’t seem the type to surrender under any circumstances. Still, from his demeanor, it seemed he was bearing on because he had no choice. Anderson finally broke through in the fiftieth game of the fifth set—a result that seemed, for some time, inevitable.
As the royal box flashed by on the screen, I found myself thinking of the Queen, set to meet Isner’s compatriot Donald Trump later that day, and of the Prime Minister, Theresa May, who was at that very moment miserably taking part in an impossible test of endurance, gritting through Trump’s nasty denigrations. Isner, as it happens, had said that it would be “awesome” if Trump came to watch him, a fact that I tried to forget as I watched him, adding to the endless tallies of a sports fan’s spiritual compromises.
It was an ugly match. There was no way around it. And yet the last note of the match left me feeling, somehow, hopeful. Anderson was both too tired to celebrate and too mindful of the loser. Interviewed as he left the court, Anderson looked almost embarrassed to be accepting congratulations. His mind was on the man he had beaten. “At the end, you feel like this is a draw between the two of us,” Anderson said. “John’s such a great guy, and I really feel for him, because if I’d been on the opposite side, I don’t know how you can take that, playing for so long and coming up short.” It was a show of empathy, generosity, and selflessness by a man who had every right to tout himself—a display that felt like a rare and urgent rejoinder to the moment we find ourselves in.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Lol ended sooner than I thought but they did get Nadalovic to continue on Saturday.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, pretty sure no such analysis ensued last year when Muller beat Nadal. Well, if it does result in a fifth set tiebreak, I am all for it. What I am even more afraid of is Wimbledon slowing down the courts even more to stop 'servebots' from getting this far. Will be a fine reward for Isner's unexpected serve and volley display here.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
The writer seems unaware that 5th set tie-breakers only occur at the US Open and not at any of the other Slams. It is the US Open that is unique in this respect, not Wimbledon but, of course, because of our old friend Mr. Isner being unable to close out his matches there, Wimbledon gets tarred as if it is solely responsible for this rule.
That said, I do think it may be time to consider implementing a 5th set tie-breaker, at least whilst Big John continues to play here.
Last edited:
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Highly unlikely. After 2 consecutive marathon 5 setters (ending 13-11 in the first, 26-24 in the second), I will be amazed if Big Kev can actually stand up on Centre Court this Sunday let alone play another match!
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
Stranger things happen in sports, but yeah, it will be a monumental achievement should Anderson pull it off.
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic winning would be sweet, but anything can happen in sports!
gogo
Legend
I think that this statement is a cop out. Both of these guys fought with their lives. To say that no one won it is a sham.
Congratulations to Kevin Anderson. Good effort by John Isner.
I loved that their level didn't wain too much 6 hours into the match. To diss them is to not have played aggressive tennis for 6.5 hours.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, lol of very unfair criticism of the players. They can't return? OK who exactly returns Big John well? And what was 'Maestro' doing against Anderson? This is just one of many brilliant points I saw: Big John pulls Kevin wide on the FH side with a 120 mph serve but Kevin stretches and yorks him with a bazooka of a dipping FH return. Not to be outdone, Big John gets down, all 6 feet 8 inches of him, to volley up off his shoelaces and into Kevin's backhand corner! If people cannot see that these are skills of the highest order, then they will get the tennis they deserve. Blame Wimbledon for not embracing the 5th set tiebreak and for putting the two on Centre Court with Nadalovic lined up. But don't blame the players. They absolutely played their hearts out. I mean, with the score like 17-17 or so facing double break point, Isner hit 3 back to back aces to get to Ad. That's not servebotting, that's just clutchness beyond belief. How heartbreaking it must be for him to both lose and get slagged off by the ignorant media for his magnificent efforts!
If someone said to me the score will be 7-6 6-7 6-7 6-4 26-24 I would have thought the match would be like watching paint dry. Instead we got a match that for the most part was compelling with some brilliant play under pressure from both of them. Critics went into the match assuming it would be excruciating, then couldn't bring themselves to change their minds based on the on court action.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Seems like just one fanbase
. Maybe 90sClay. Looks like just one fanbase to me.
Who was it ? Octo ? rafa24 ? nadal_freak ? bullzie ? Raise your hand !
Shank Volley
Hall of Fame
I think he assumed that everyone takes as long to get up from the ground as he does. Tall person problems, am I right?
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
I loved every minute of the match. Seriously.
I would have liked a bit more S&V, though.
MasterZeb
Hall of Fame
Oh yeah definitely. Just that one guy. Not gonna blame anyone else. Everyone else was respectful. I’m not gonna for a second say that as a whole, the Wimbledon crowd are anyway near as vocal as the French though. They particularly like to have their opinions heard.Seems like just one fanbase
Looks like just one fanbase to me.
Who was it ? Octo ? rafa24 ? nadal_freak ? bullzie ? Raise your hand !
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
He probably thought he was being very funny.
I heard the commie say that John smiled when one spectator said something about 60-58. Did not catch it.
MasterZeb
Hall of Fame
Me neither. It’s usually funny when the crowd says something. I just thought saying particularly that while the players are in the fifth fighting it out tooth and nail for a chance at Wimbledon glory and giving it all, was very disrespectful.
heftylefty
Hall of Fame
Whining about a 5th set tiebreaker is not the problem. Guys being nothing but servbots is the issue. Learn to return serve.
Next time someone goes on about how "incredible" tennis players are compared to other athletes, remind them of this "epic" borefest.
Next time someone goes on about how "incredible" tennis players are compared to other athletes, remind them of this "epic" borefest.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Isner was only 43% on second serve in the fifth set, faced 6 break points (conceding only one) and Anderson won 29% receiving points against the Isner serve. For comparison, at the IW 2012 final (slow HC as opposed to grass), Roger Federer had 35% RPW against Isner. 31% in the first set which is not much better than Anderson's number (and considering the difficulty of returning of grass in the last set of an already long match, pretty much the same). And by the way, Fed too could produce only 3 break points in that entire match against Isner. For a more relevant comparison, Fed had 25% RPW against Anderson's serve in the fifth set of their QF at this tournament. So, yes, Anderson actually returned Isner's more fearsome serve better than the GOAT himself returned Anderson's serve, strange as it seems to be.
No, doesn't sound like Anderson at least needs to "learn to return serve" (Isner could improve his return though it's a bit late for that). This was about Big John pushing him as hard as he could before the better returner of the two (and by far) prevailed. Isner was 78% on first serve and as McEnroe put it, he wasn't exactly plonking it in. Just how do you serve average 120 mph in a LOOOONG final set and still keep up that high a first %? Another example of misdirected criticism. It's not about players not being able to return. Halep-Davis played a 15-13 final set at the AO and neither serve like Isner or Anderson (nor is AO so conducive to big serving as Wimbledon). It's the rule, dammit. As somebody observed in another thread, you can't preserve tradition just for the sake of it. Have a fifth set tiebreak like USO. Ok, if you (I mean a figurative you to be clear) think Americans are stupid or whatever, then have it at 10-10 but have a fifth set tiebreak.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Isner did S&V a lot, though not like Dustin Brown level. Anderson's the one who stayed back mostly...and won.
Seriously, though, I am delighted for Anderson. So inspiring to see a certified choker transform himself into a big serving version of Iceborg. His clutchness this tournament has been out of this world.
D
Deleted member 512391
Guest
Great comment.
I hadn't watched Isner prior to his match against Kevin at this Wimbledon and I don't understand who he reached the final with the return he has. Was he returning better in the previous rounds or the draw was simply generous to him?
From what I've seen in the Anderson match, his return was far from impressive (like it has always been, actually).
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
But he didn't, if you mean Isner. Isner lost. The result I had expected prior to the match (I am serious, lol) and, yes, because Anderson has the far better return and ground game. But it got very, very tricky because Isner is almost unbreakable. The question to me is why couldn't he do this before on grass because big servers feast on grass. If you want to know why he reached the semi, well, may have something to do with how fearsome his second serve is. Maybe the best second serve in the game ever. Imagine kick serves into the body coming so high that giant Anderson was hitting double handers almost above his head. There was one body serve that was hit so ferociously it sounded like a gunshot (the commentators said so too) and Anderson almost backed off instinctively, ha ha. Anderson was left to make the most of the few chances he got to make inroads into Isner's serve. And when he did get break points, Isner would fire away aces and get out of jail. I can't imagine how tenacious Anderson has to have been to have seen it through.
D
Deleted member 512391
Guest
I meant the SF, obviously, lol.
Yeah, but he's had the same big second serve in the last 5 years, but couldn't pass the 3R at Wimbledon. It could be that the conditions this year are a bit different and helped his serve to be even more lethal. I've noticed in the Djokovic - Nadal match that the bounce was ridiculous, Novak had to jump several times to hit his BH in order to deal with the balls that bounced above his arms (off Nadal's CC FH, of course), so I guess it has been tougher to deal with his insane kick this year.
Kudos to Anderson, what he managed to survive in that match deserves a huge respect. I remember those games when he had several break points, but Isner would just hit ace after ace. I can only imagine how it affects player's confidence, but Kevin was never broken mentally. What a transformation, from a choker to a clutch guy.
Anyway, the two most important shots on grass have always been serve and return, so I'm not surprised that Anderson won, guy's return is quite superior to Isner's.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Interesting little fact mentioned by John Inverdale in his commentary during the match to John McEnroe:
Anderson is the first South African player to contest the Wimbledon final since 1921 (97 years ago) when Brian Norton lost a 5 setter to Bill Tilden (before anyone mentions Kevin Curren in 1985, Curren had already taken US nationality by then and played under the US flag).
Anderson is the first South African player to contest the Wimbledon final since 1921 (97 years ago) when Brian Norton lost a 5 setter to Bill Tilden (before anyone mentions Kevin Curren in 1985, Curren had already taken US nationality by then and played under the US flag).
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I will never forget this 6'8 guy falling down, getting up, returning with his left hand and winning the point.
How would anyone expect players to continue returning well at the end of 5 sets and way past 6-6?
There were breaks in set 3 and 4. It was not just servebot tennis the whole time.
We all remember the match being too long. That's the fault of Wimbledon and the modern game, not the players.
How would anyone expect players to continue returning well at the end of 5 sets and way past 6-6?
There were breaks in set 3 and 4. It was not just servebot tennis the whole time.
We all remember the match being too long. That's the fault of Wimbledon and the modern game, not the players.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Absolutely. Great presence of mind there on the part of Anderson.
WYK
Hall of Fame
I remember when there were no tie breakers at all in any set. Imagine an Isner/Anderson match before late 1987. I recall McEnroe looking like he was gonna vomit Sampras style after 6 hours on the other side of the net from Becker in the Davis Cup 1987. Just wore him out. That match went 6 hours 21 and 4–6, 15–13, 8–10, 6–2, 6–2 a day before they brought in tiebreaks.
heftylefty
Hall of Fame
https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/rafael-nadal-vs-john-isner/n409/i186
Apparently this guy knows how to return serve.
Apparently this guy knows how to return serve.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Didn't know how to return Djokovic's serve it seems. Welp!
heftylefty
Hall of Fame
Yet, we didn't see to guys just bombing serve endlessly, right?
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
We, at least those of us who had a pair of functioning eyes, didn't yesterday either.
heftylefty
Hall of Fame
I'm sorry, I've must have missed the 20 shot rallies that Isner routinely engages.
The point is my original comment was some myopic tennis fans believe "their" require skills no other athlete could possibly learn. Isner exposed that myth yesterday.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
My God, you are digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself. Yes, there were 20 shot rallies in yesterday's match. You don't know it because you didn't watch it, unlike me. Having one's preferences is alright as long as you don't project opinions passed off as objective or factual statements to rationalise your preferences. In this case, those statements happen to be wrong. I am telling you again, yesterday's match was not your Raonic-Karlovic serve fest. Both guys played out rallies and came to the net where they volleyed beautifully. McEnroe even quipped that it was almost amusing to see two 6 foot 8 guys playing out a long rally from the baseline.
Checkmate
Legend
@Kralingen
Look what I created. A match that changed the history of tennis.
Look what I created. A match that changed the history of tennis.
Kralingen
Talk Tennis Guru
It seems that 2018 was a special year for you. Federer 2006 or McEnroe 1984. Wow. Epic.
Checkmate
Legend
Highest Forum peaks ever.
Kralingen
Talk Tennis Guru
It was a grueling match. Isner is my hometown guy but I definitely had to take a break during this one lol.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
