The Australian had always shown another version of himself: teasing, angry, the good one who doesn’t apply. Now no, he has reached the epilogue with a beautiful and solid tennis. And even Djokovic has a hard time reading someone like that
Who knows if it ever happened to beat “from below” in a Wimbledon final. Who knows if it will happen in this anomalous edition, diminished by the ban towards the east, a bit haunted by the consequent decision to deduct the points and contracted a little more from the Covid cases of Berrettini, Cilic and Bautista (all in excellent shape, the Roman probably second favorite of the tournament) but ultimately redeemed by a few good games and a final where, however, two (very different) peaks of this game are measured. The strongest player on the grass of the last decade and the strongest player of a decade ever, the one of wasted years and talents. After yet another (what? Boh) impatience with Nick Kyrgios’ rules, I was asked for a piece, and maybe it wasn’t even the first of its kind. But Kyrgios is difficult to classify, to be placed at the bottom of any lineage and in fact the impression is that we had to separate him from the others: in tennis (in sport) there are (and have been) necessary rude – even expected at their performance, more or less commanded – and superfluous peasants, therefore annoying. Kyrgios was among the latter.