McEnroe not giving credit to Muguruza for her win

[db379]

I was surprised to hear McEnroe commenting for the BBC yesterday trying to downplay Muguruza's win. At the start of the match he said Venus will win, and she has so much experience, it's a done deal! 1 hour later with Muguruza bageling Venus in the 2nd set, McEnroe was speechless. He said very well done to Muguruza, but then went on and on about how surprised he was that Venus did not win, and especially that she should have won the first set (which I agree was very close, but still that's often how it goes in tennis, isn't it John?). In a typical McEnroe style he started finding excuses for Venus's loss, claiming she was maybe injured ("but we'll never know because she would not say..."), or that suddenly her car accident came back to trouble her (just for the final but didn't trouble her to reach the final... very dubious theory), etc...

What's wrong with simply admitting Muguruza was the better player yesterday and she deserved to win. Venus fought hard, but Muguruza impressed me with her resilience and determination, and she completely deserved to win this. No excuses.

 

[HipRotation]

APOLOGISE JOHN

 

[EdSWright]

A post about women's tennis... Is that you, Andy?

 

[MichaelNadal]

I was surprised to hear McEnroe commenting for the BBC yesterday trying to downplay Muguruza's win. At the start of the match he said Venus will win, and she has so much experience, it's a done deal! 1 hour later with Muguruza bageling Venus in the 2nd set, McEnroe was speechless. He said very well done to Muguruza, but then went on and on about how surprised he was that Venus did not win, and especially that she should have won the first set (which I agree was very close, but still that's often how it goes in tennis, isn't it John?). In a typical McEnroe style he started finding excuses for Venus's loss, claiming she was maybe injured ("but we'll never know because she would not say..."), or that suddenly her car accident came back to trouble her (just for the final but didn't trouble her to reach the final... very dubious theory), etc...

What's wrong with simply admitting Muguruza was the better player yesterday and she deserved to win. Venus fought hard, but Muguruza impressed me with her resilience and determination, and she completely deserved to win this. No excuses.

I heard that too and didn't like it either. I agree Venus should have won the first set though, that EASSSSY peazzzzyy FH on set point she'd have probably won the title if she just made that FH. But Muguruza played VERY well, and there were some rallies after saving SP that I was shocked to see her win, she really turned up the heat after she held. The mental shift was palpable.

 

[Mr.Lob]

Wants to sell more of his book?

 

[Russeljones]

JMac's gonna be JMac. Deal with it.

 

[Bartelby]

The ghost of Mr. Barson theory sounds like a home-towner clutching for an excuse.

In any event, Venus must have mentally folded because very little that she hit went in after the first set.

 

[MichaelNadal]

The ghost of Mr. Barson theory sounds like a home-towner clutching for an excuse.

In any event, Venus must have mentally folded because very little that she hit went in after the first set.

It was quite weird, bc she was literally playing as well as 2007 in the first. I've never seen such a bad set from her and it was the first bagel she's ever gotten at Wimbledon.

 

[SpinToWin]

Muguruza did very well to defend the two set points she had against her in set 1.


After that Venus faded like I've never seen before though. I mean, losing 9 games in succession after having break points to go a set up? So, to be fair to John, what happened there was rather inexplicable. Combine that with John's.... Let's call it presumptuous nature, and here's what you get. I personally thought it might be nerves getting to her, but who knows. Just like any slam winner, Muguruza obviously deserved to win it yesterday, but I do think that Venus' severe drop in level deserves mentioning. We can be very indirect about it and say that Muguruza was better on the day (which she was), but Venus' drop in level certainly played a part in that.

 

[db379]

Venus dropped her level in the 2nd set, but why look for all sorts of excuses outside of what happened on court? It's pretty clear that Venus was affected by the loss of the 1st set after being so close to win it, and I believe that the most plausible reason for her poor play in the 2nd. I think she didn't expect Muguruza to stay as well as she did in the long rallies, and she realized Muguruza was just the better player. That would put some doubts on anyone's mind. I hated when Mac started to say she might be injured.... she did not look injured and she did not claim she was. Hey JMac, how about Muguruza was simply better, well deserved, Venus did all she could but it just was not enough?

 

[*Sparkle*]

I understood him wanting to understand the dip in form, and it's inevitable he was rooting for Venus, but it was a bit ungracious, and inappropriate at a time when we should have been praising Muguruza.

To be honest, I think Muguruza just got better, getting over some early nerves and getting used to Venus' pace and especially her serve. Venus dipped a bit, but she was still very competitive in a lot of the games in the 2nd set, and I think she was just taken by surprise by how good Muguruza was.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Why blame Mac when the forum in general has reacted like that? The talk is all about Venus slipping after the first set, not about what Muguruza was doing. She played better than any of Venus' opponents up to the final, why wouldn't she deserve to win? Was hitting amazing off balance passing shots off the backhand but people had foolishly pencilled in Venus as the winner and are unable to adjust to the reality now. Mac just happened to play it out on air, which is par for the course for arrogant American commentators.

 

[sportmac]

I was surprised to hear McEnroe commenting for the BBC yesterday trying to downplay Muguruza's win. At the start of the match he said Venus will win, and she has so much experience, it's a done deal! 1 hour later with Muguruza bageling Venus in the 2nd set, McEnroe was speechless. He said very well done to Muguruza, but then went on and on about how surprised he was that Venus did not win, and especially that she should have won the first set (which I agree was very close, but still that's often how it goes in tennis, isn't it John?). In a typical McEnroe style he started finding excuses for Venus's loss, claiming she was maybe injured ("but we'll never know because she would not say..."), or that suddenly her car accident came back to trouble her (just for the final but didn't trouble her to reach the final... very dubious theory), etc...

What's wrong with simply admitting Muguruza was the better player yesterday and she deserved to win. Venus fought hard, but Muguruza impressed me with her resilience and determination, and she completely deserved to win this. No excuses.

Agree. And it's not like he only mentioned the car accident and her health issues and the possibility of being injured just once, he wouldn't drop it.

Once again, bad form from this man.

 

[sportmac]

Why blame Mac when the forum in general has reacted like that? The talk is all about Venus slipping after the first set, not about what Muguruza was doing. She played better than any of Venus' opponents up to the final, why wouldn't she deserve to win? Was hitting amazing off balance passing shots off the backhand but people had foolishly pencilled in Venus as the winner and are unable to adjust to the reality now. Mac just happened to play it out on air, which is par for the course for arrogant American commentators.

Garbie had 1 unforced error in the 2nd set, total, and she was finding the corners with pace. She had Venus on her back foot out of the gates to start the 2nd.
So Venus's forehand certainly went missing but I think Garbie's game had something to do with it.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Garbie had 1 unforced error in the 2nd set, total, and she was finding the corners with pace. She had Venus on her back foot out of the gates to start the 2nd.
So Venus's forehand certainly went missing but I think Garbie's game had something to do with it.

It did, but come on, Venus was a UE machine, her shots were literally 10 feet outside the baseline in neutral rallies. I don't think Garbie played much better than Konta tbh, but from 5-5 in the first up until breaking Venus at the beginning of the second, complete credit is deserved, in those moments she was majestic.

 

[SprinkServe]

... She played better than any of Venus' opponents up to the final, why wouldn't she deserve to win? Was hitting amazing off balance passing shots off the backhand

True, but Garbine was doing that throughout much of the first set, after she'd settled in, which is why it went to tiebreak. So it's logical to at least ask what -- if anything -- changed for Venus in the second set.

I won't comment on McEnroe, he's just who he is.

Muguruza played hard and strong, she's terrific. I just wish it had been more of a contest.

 

[Shank Volley]

It did, but come on, Venus was a UE machine, her shots were literally 10 feet outside the baseline in neutral rallies. I don't think Garbie played much better than Konta tbh, but from 5-5 in the first up until breaking Venus at the beginning of the second, complete credit is deserved, in those moments she was majestic.

I don't think Venus managed to get a single backhand into the court in the second set. Not even exaggerating. Muguruza literally just had to put the ball in the court once and the point was over.

 

[MatsPhilander]

Most aren't giving her credit-Austin was going on about Venus rather than Mugu, implying that she lost it rather than Mugu won it. The truth is that most of these pundits have their nose so far up the sisters backsides due to what they have done & with Venus that is a distant memory & the weakness of most of the other women that it always has to be a dip in their form rather than their opponent.

 

[*Sparkle*]

Agree. And it's not like he only mentioned the car accident and her health issues and the possibility of being injured just once, he wouldn't drop it.

Once again, bad form from this man.

That's what bugged me. We all like a bit of empathy for the loser, and a quick mention of how well she'd done, all things considered, would have been more than acceptable. But this was for the BBC, not American tv, and there should have been more focus on the merits of the well deserving victor.

I suppose Mac, like some of the other American commentators spend time commentating on American tv, as well as for the BBC, and I wonder if they spend a bit too much time bigging up the Williams sisters for the home audience that they forget that the other players are very good too. I mean, I fully expected all of the American commentators to pick Venus as the likely winner, but I didn't think they all believed it was certain.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

True, but Garbine was doing that throughout much of the first set, after she'd settled in, which is why it went to tiebreak. So it's logical to at least ask what -- if anything -- changed for Venus in the second set.

I won't comment on McEnroe, he's just who he is.

Muguruza played hard and strong, she's terrific. I just wish it had been more of a contest.

It did not go to a tiebreak. And I agree that Venus' level dropped in the 2nd, it was obvious. But I didn't like the way it was emphasised so much as if to suggest she would have clawed her way back into the match without it. That we do not know. Muguruza beat Serena in straight sets in the RG final last year. Yes, this is Wimbledon, but she's also playing Venus, not Serena. A Venus who's not won a slam in 9 years.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Most aren't giving her credit-Austin was going on about Venus rather than Mugu, implying that she lost it rather than Mugu won it. The truth is that most of these pundits have their nose so far up the sisters backsides due to what they have done & with Venus that is a distant memory & the weakness of most of the other women that it always has to be a dip in their form rather than their opponent.

Amen, thank you. This is exactly what I found irritating. I read it more as Venus gave it all in the first set and when she still ended up losing it, she was exhausted both mentally and physically. She may not have fancied a three set battle against the younger and fitter Muguruza. Besides, she was out of moves. She was finding it hard to beat Mug out of the ground and there's only so much servebotting she can do. So the only argument that can be made is Venus could have servebotted to give herself a chance in the second but there's no guarantee that it wouldn't have been Mug again who finally clinched the break. By the by, Venus got a high % of first serves in in both sets. She upped it even more in the second set because she was not winning much on the second serve in the first set. To that end, she dropped her serve speed a bit but she still wasn't rolling it in and yet won only 40% points on first serve. So Muguruza had to have been reading her serve better in the second set for that to happen.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Amen, thank you. This is exactly what I found irritating. I read it more as Venus gave it all in the first set and when she still ended up losing it, she was exhausted both mentally and physically. She may not have fancied a three set battle against the younger and fitter Muguruza. Besides, she was out of moves. She was finding it hard to beat Mug out of the ground and there's only so much servebotting she can do. So the only argument that can be made is Venus could have servebotted to give herself a chance in the second but there's no guarantee that it wouldn't have been Mug again who finally clinched the break. By the by, Venus got a high % of first serves in in both sets. She upped it even more in the second set because she was not winning much on the second serve in the first set. To that end, she dropped her serve speed a bit but she still wasn't rolling it in and yet won only 40% points on first serve. So Muguruza had to have been reading her serve better in the second set for that to happen.

Venus was playing just as well as Garbine from the baseline in the first set too though. It was only in the second that she fell off a clip, this isn't to discredit Garbine, she was in the final for a reason. It's not all black and white. Venus has been playing well all year, it's not like she's not capable of playing good tennis, she was up until she was broken in the second.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

It did, but come on, Venus was a UE machine, her shots were literally 10 feet outside the baseline in neutral rallies. I don't think Garbie played much better than Konta tbh, but from 5-5 in the first up until breaking Venus at the beginning of the second, complete credit is deserved, in those moments she was majestic.

Just in the first set (not even getting into the second set), Garbine defended her second serve WAY better than Johanna, was significantly better on 1st serve and a touch better on receiving points won as well. She was also better at the net. In fact, the department where Johanna was better than Garbine was the most unexpected one - groundstrokes. In any case, no, Garbine did in fact play much better than Johanna. If she was better than Johanna in four departments overall, you can't say it isn't much better. So when Venus lost the first set 5-7 where she won it 6-4 against Johanna, she probably felt disheartened.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

JMac just an idiot, shouldn't be commentating tennis matches. So many people wrote Muguruza off without even watching any of her matches, her SF was flawless, I had her as my pick for the final, many of the so called experts didn't.

Muguruza outplayed Venus, simple as that. She deserves all the credit, it wasn't handed to her. The 2 set points Venus has were on Muguruza's serve and it's not like Venus choked a smash at the net, Garbine just fought hard and deserved to win. Garbie barely blinked after saving those set points and just played lights out.

I'd take anything JMac has to say with a grain of salt, he's continually saying stupid things and to be honest, he shouldn't commentate women's matches.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Agree. And it's not like he only mentioned the car accident and her health issues and the possibility of being injured just once, he wouldn't drop it.

Once again, bad form from this man.

Poor form from McEnroe? Surely not, that's a big shocker. He's usually so well spoken and not at all one who tries to get the headlines.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Venus was playing just as well as Garbine from the baseline in the first set too though. It was only in the second that she fell off a clip, this isn't to discredit Garbine, she was in the final for a reason. It's not all black and white. Venus has been playing well all year, it's not like she's not capable of playing good tennis, she was up until she was broken in the second.

So this is kind of the point. She still lost the first set in spite of playing well. When an aging player loses after giving everything against a younger and fitter player, they can lose some of the fight. It happened to Fed against Djokovic at Wimbledon in 2015. It took so much out of him to win the second set that he was gassed in the next two. So yes Venus played well but the hope that if she had kept up the level she would have turned tables on Garbine is just that - a hope.

 

[MichaelNadal]

So this is kind of the point. She still lost the first set in spite of playing well. When an aging player loses after giving everything against a younger and fitter player, they can lose some of the fight. It happened to Fed against Djokovic at Wimbledon in 2015. It took so much out of him to win the second set that he was gassed in the next two. So yes Venus played well but the hope that if she had kept up the level she would have turned tables on Garbine is just that - a hope.

I think u guys are over-analyzing both Mac and to a lesser degree, what I'm saying. Garbine was the better player PERIOD. I like her and wouldn't dispute that. All I'm saying is that I've never, ever seen a set where Venus was hitting neutral balls 10-15 feet out of court for no reason. It just doesn't (and hasn't) happened for a whole set. It was VERY unusual for the wheels to come off the way they did. After she lost the first set, she was probably going to lose regardless.... it's just the way she was gifting points was inexplicable of the Venus that's been playing the past year.

 

[SprinkServe]

It did not go to a tiebreak.

You're right, my apologies. On my head it was 7-6, not 7-5, but that's what happens when one watches tennis with very demanding rugrats.

The only real point was that was a very competitive set and the second wasn't, so what the heck happened, I wondered.

I don't buy into the idea that Venus wasn't fit enough. Perhaps in a third set the age difference might have been a factor, but the second? Nah.

Anyway, to reiterate, congrats to Garbine. Love the way she plays.

 

[Steve0904]

After Muguruza won the first set she got better and Venus became way worse. Obviously, Venus's extremely poor play contributed to her being bageled, but I don't think for a minute that Venus playing better would've changed the outcome of that set and subsequently the match. Her problem was that she gave everything to win the first and when it didn't happen she got discouraged, even tired maybe.

She started trying to end points early which is why she made bunches of UEs. Mugu noticed this and was mostly just very consistent at keeping the ball in play with great depth. And when Venus occasionally came to the net she got passed so nothing was working. Muguruza didn't miss often in that second set and it was a fantastic performance on the whole.

And yes, I hate when you can hear bias from a commentator so I see where this thread is coming from. It rubs me the wrong way as well.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

You're right, my apologies. On my head it was 7-6, not 7-5, but that's what happens when one watches tennis with very demanding rugrats.

The only real point was that was a very competitive set and the second wasn't, so what the heck happened, I wondered.

I don't buy into the idea that Venus wasn't fit enough. Perhaps in a third set the age difference might have been a factor, but the second? Nah.

Anyway, to reiterate, congrats to Garbine. Love the way she plays.

But she would have to play a third set to win the match, no? Maybe realising she was going to lose another slam final killed any fight left in her. After all, what use is 6-4 instead of 6-0 if it doesn't change the result? I know it sound defeatist for a player like Venus but she hasn't won slams in a long time and she probably lost interest when she lost control of the second set VERY early.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

After Muguruza won the first set she got better and Venus became way worse. Obviously, Venus's extremely poor play contributed to her being bageled, but I don't think for a minute that Venus playing better would've changed the outcome of that set and subsequently the match. Her problem was that she gave everything to win the first and when it didn't happen she got discouraged, even tired maybe.

She started trying to end points early which is why she made bunches of UEs. Mugu noticed this and was mostly just very consistent at keeping the ball in play with great depth. And when Venus occasionally came to the net she got passed so nothing was working. Muguruza didn't miss often in that second set and it was a fantastic performance on the whole.

And yes, I hate when you can hear bias from a commentator so I see where this thread is coming from. It rubs me the wrong way as well.

Yeah, this isn't getting mentioned enough. It was very difficult for Venus to rush Mug and break down her defence. She passed her even when Venus tried to hit behind her. She was completely in the zone.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I think u guys are over-analyzing both Mac and to a lesser degree, what I'm saying. Garbine was the better player PERIOD. I like her and wouldn't dispute that. All I'm saying is that I've never, ever seen a set where Venus was hitting neutral balls 10-15 feet out of court for no reason. It just doesn't (and hasn't) happened for a whole set. It was VERY unusual for the wheels to come off the way they did. After she lost the first set, she was probably going to lose regardless.... it's just the way she was gifting points was inexplicable of the Venus that's been playing the past year.

And all I am saying is that is not the reason Venus lost. I guess Mac was focusing on the American interest in the championship and therefore just stopped talking about how well Mug was playing. Would you ever see that if say Fed was bagelling Hewitt? No way, they would gush about the exhibition he was putting up. Heck, when Fed's level dropped against Nole in W 2015 fourth set, they were still talking about how well Nole was playing. I still think this is just a case where people assumed because of Venus' prior record at Wimbledon that she was going to win. In a way, reminiscent of Kvitova-Bouchard in the sense Kvitova was flying under the radar and people didn't notice that she was in good form.

 

[MatsPhilander]

Venus like Birdy against Fed played very well. First set was very tight & although the second wasn't-she was still fighting hard & pressuring Mugu's serve in some game. Disappointing to see so many on this forum having a go at Venus who would have rewritten the modern record books by winning at 37. Simple nature-a fit & hungry 23 year old with 6 years on the tour against a 37 year old with 23 years on the tour, a health problem, personal issues who has nothing to prove, of course Venus is going to run out of gas & her head will drop when she is being outplayed. That was the most exciting Wimbledon women's final for over a decade.

 

[Steve0904]

Yeah, this isn't getting mentioned enough. It was very difficult for Venus to rush Mug and break down her defence. She passed her even when Venus tried to hit behind her. She was completely in the zone.

It's the worst I've ever seen Venus play, but do I think an average level from Venus would've won her the 2nd set? Absolutely not. She had to come up with something special to beat Garbine yesterday. That performance, especially in the 2nd set, was amazing. The extreme nature of 6-0 was helped along considerably by Venus, but the performance in and of itself was still amazing and the winner was never in doubt, IMO, no matter if it was 6-1 or 6-2 instead of 6-0.

 

[thrust]

I understood him wanting to understand the dip in form, and it's inevitable he was rooting for Venus, but it was a bit ungracious, and inappropriate at a time when we should have been praising Muguruza.

To be honest, I think Muguruza just got better, getting over some early nerves and getting used to Venus' pace and especially her serve. Venus dipped a bit, but she was still very competitive in a lot of the games in the 2nd set, and I think she was just taken by surprise by how good Muguruza was.

Good and accurate post. Venus is 37 and as great as her accomplishment was I think that losing that close first set, the way she did, took a lot out of her physically and mentally. At 37 one does not recover from physical or mental failures as quickly as one does at 27 or a few years less. At 25-27, Venus would have easily defeated anyone in this year's Wimbledon, except for Serena.

 

[TennisATP]

What's wrong with McEnroe always finding a way to criticize and put down women? It's one thing to be macho and masculine, but this is almost sad.

 

[Steve0904]

And all I am saying is that is not the reason Venus lost. I guess Mac was focusing on the American interest in the championship and therefore just stopped talking about how well Mug was playing. Would you ever see that if say Fed was bagelling Hewitt? No way, they would gush about the exhibition he was putting up. Heck, when Fed's level dropped against Nole in W 2015 fourth set, they were still talking about how well Nole was playing. I still think this is just a case where people assumed because of Venus' prior record at Wimbledon that she was going to win. In a way, reminiscent of Kvitova-Bouchard in the sense Kvitova was flying under the radar and people didn't notice that she was in good form.

I think that's a good point about American interest because it was similar when Querrey played Cilic IMO. You could hear PMac and especially Cliff Drysdale (who's not American, but is still a commentator for ESPN) get a little extra excited when Querrey won a big point as opposed to when Cilic did it.

I get it, it's an American station, but it does get tiring very quickly for me. I'm not saying they go full deadpan, but a little less obvious would be nice at the least.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I think that's a good point about American interest because it was similar when Querrey played Cilic IMO. You could hear PMac and especially Cliff Drysdale (who's not American, but is still a commentator for ESPN) get a little extra excited when Querrey won a big point as opposed to when Cilic did it.

I get it, it's an American station, but it does get tiring very quickly for me. I'm not saying they go full deadpan, but a little less obvious would be nice at the least.

Yeah, or maybe just talk in a more familiar tone about your compatriot, that would be fine. But the way the sport is going, and how globalised it is, these things become increasingly grating to hear in commentary. I mean, a Swiss (the traditionally neutral country) whose mother is South African, speaks many languages and whose overall behaviour is nothing but a PR's wet dream, is currently the greatest player in the game. You couldn't choose a better tabula rasa or clean slate upon which to place almost every tennis fan's fantasy of glory: he's not too American, not too Eastern, he's European enough but not too European either, he plays all-court tennis, he's won every Slam, he even speaks French.

There's a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the worldwide tennis brand these days: 1) the gentlemanly neutrality of yesteryear regarding nationality (that was of course accompanied by racial bias and other terrible things; I'm not at all endorsing the rose-tinted narrative of the past) is disappearing and being replaced by raucous, populist nationalism, a trend that pundits, commentators and the media have no problem reproducing and intensifying; 2) at the same time, the sport is inevitably becoming a product of the world we live in, and if you look at players like Konta (Hungarian, Australian, British), Federer (what I mentioned before), Naomi Osaka (Haitian and Japanese), the "Polish" contingent in the women's game (Kerber and Lisicki, who are also German; Wozniacki, who is also Danish), to mention only a few, it becomes very difficult - a futile task, if you ask me - to try to assign specific national traits to these people, especially if we consider they're all playing an individual sport.

It's fine to have a preference for your compatriot when he or she is playing, although I find it more understandable when it's a country who is either 1) not first world or 2) not usually in the winner's circle when it comes to tennis (I understand the Brazilians going crazy with Guga, I understand Latvia going crazy with Ostapenko, etc). But first and foremost, it's an individual sport, and as such commentators should probably tone down on the 19th century/WWII/Cold War jingoism. Even Sharapova is a Russian who spent all her life in the US, for god's sake.

I say embrace the ambiguity and cheer for whoever pleases you the most.

 

[tacou]

The fact he thought it was a done deal beforehand tells you all you need to know about his tennis insight these days.

 

[SpinDr.]

John is an *******. Period.

 

[Get A Grip]

I was surprised to hear McEnroe commenting for the BBC yesterday trying to downplay Muguruza's win. At the start of the match he said Venus will win, and she has so much experience, it's a done deal! 1 hour later with Muguruza bageling Venus in the 2nd set, McEnroe was speechless. He said very well done to Muguruza, but then went on and on about how surprised he was that Venus did not win, and especially that she should have won the first set (which I agree was very close, but still that's often how it goes in tennis, isn't it John?). In a typical McEnroe style he started finding excuses for Venus's loss, claiming she was maybe injured ("but we'll never know because she would not say..."), or that suddenly her car accident came back to trouble her (just for the final but didn't trouble her to reach the final... very dubious theory), etc...

What's wrong with simply admitting Muguruza was the better player yesterday and she deserved to win. Venus fought hard, but Muguruza impressed me with her resilience and determination, and she completely deserved to win this. No excuses.

I didn't hear it, but I can well imagine him saying it. Terrible! The Us commie bias for American players is considerable--not just Jmac. It almost rivals the Fed bias among commies.

 

[db379]

Most aren't giving her credit-Austin was going on about Venus rather than Mugu, implying that she lost it rather than Mugu won it. The truth is that most of these pundits have their nose so far up the sisters backsides due to what they have done & with Venus that is a distant memory & the weakness of most of the other women that it always has to be a dip in their form rather than their opponent.

Agree, and that's is so biased and disgusting when commentators do that. Same thing every time Murray loses, it has to be because he is injured or not 100% or he needs to rest, and any other stupid reason.... It's not like they play against a wall, and that everything they do (win or lose) is completely under their control. Come on guys, a little respect for the opponent too?