3 of 68 people found the following review helpful
not worth buhing this year unless you are a Murray fan,
This review is from: Wimbledon: The Official Film 2013 [DVD]  (DVD)
For the first in many years, I shall not buy the DVD or the book. What's the point when most of the best players were beaten or retired or withdrew early on and there were all those questions about the state of the grass and some painful looking slips and slides? This Wim started badly therefore. For sure there were a few good matches, such as ND vs Delpo semi-final was quite exciting. The Murray side of the draw was a devastation so no wonder he could reach the final easily. But unfortunately the final was another baselining bore and I soon turned it off so no way do I want to see it in full let alone any more times. Many people I know didn't even bother to watch because Murray and ND are so similar in style that their matches are tedious. Sure if you are a Murray fan, you will love this video and the book. Otherwise........ why not give it a miss, save the money for something containing Federer, Nadal, etc? Too many of the top ladies also in a mess at this tournament. Unauspicious.
No Federer, no Nadal, no Tsonga.... When these guys aren't playing, and ladies like Sharapova and Williams, what's left isn't nearly as interesting, unfortunately. The game has been damaged by slow courts, racquets doing too much but hurting players, long dreary rallies so that even TV are now demanding shorter matches to keep viewers interested..... It's going to be a very poor tennis era when Federer & Nadal and "older players" like Haas, Ferrer, Robredo etc retire, unless some younger players can at long last show some ability to win top tournaments and majors.
Hoping for better things next year.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-7 of 7 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 8 Aug 2013 12:16:15 BDT
H. Gibson says:
That's not really a review of the book per se, as a review of Wimbledon itself. You're entitled to feel this way, but it's not the author's fault that Wimbledon turned out the way it did.
Posted on 9 Aug 2013 14:44:35 BDT
Last edited by the author on 9 Aug 2013 14:47:28 BDT
D. Milne says:
Where is that smell of sour grapes coming from? "The best players were beaten ... early on". On the contrary, assuming we are talking about the men then the top two seeds both made it to the final - which isn't an accident since it's the third time in 12 months that those same two players reached a slam final (Murray not taking part in the fourth). The producers of this DVD can't be blamed if you tied your colours to the wrong mast, or are still hankering over the past glory days of this or that aging player. Also, did you even watch the final? I'm wondering because the final was certainly no baseline duel: both players were approaching the net quite often (surprisingly so in Djokovic's case), rallies were nothing like as long as they were at (say) the US Open.
Posted on 7 Sep 2013 16:38:32 BDT
J. E. Holmes says:
Posted on 2 Oct 2013 12:58:38 BDT
I. MCCORMACK says:
stick to reviewing the product!!
review the tournament on the correct forum
your post should be removed and i have asked amazon to do so
Posted on 5 Oct 2013 18:38:11 BDT
H. Wilson says:
Oh dear, yet another Murray hater posting their barely concealed anti-Scottish bile under the guise of commenting on his tennis achievements. This is the most consistently competitive era in tennis ever, with a level of skill and fitness ahead of past champiions, worthy though these undoubtedly were. Just a gentle reminder of how difficult it was for Andy Murray to win his first major (2012 U.S.Open), when the other three top rated players at that time, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, won their respective first majors, they were in each case facing opponents who had never won a major. Andy on the other hand, had to win his first major against Novak, a multiple major winner. Just keep voting UKIP or Tory, and get over it Helen.
Posted on 14 Oct 2013 18:52:54 BDT
Mr. Jorge A. P. Walsh says:
It seems to me that you do not really like the sport of tennis; you like the celebrity aspect of tennis. If it's not Federer or Williams, you're not interested. You claim that 'most of the best players were beaten or retired or withdrew early on'. If they were beaten early on, does that not indicate that they were not the best players? What you see as boring is simply the rise of the next generation of tennis players: Robson, Darcis, Lisicki, Stephens. 'When these guys aren't playing...what's left isn't nearly as interesting'. That says to me that you do not find tennis interesting, you just find the top players interesting and you do not care for or appreciate the sport.
Wimbledon 2013 was an excellent two weeks of tennis; interesting, controversial, dynamic, fresh.
Posted on 14 Oct 2013 21:10:34 BDT
Mr. G. E. Pirie says:
Well thank you Helen, I had noticed that Roger and Rafael went out early, but didn't for a moment think of switching off, as a tennis fan I can get my kicks from many diverse styles of play, beautifully shanking ones forehand into the net though is not one of them.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›