Taylor Fritz gets through another late-night five-setter to reach 3rd round at Wimbledon
This time, though, he managed to wrap up his win over Gabriel Diallo before the match was suspended — making sure the fifth-seeded American won't have to come back on court for a fourth straight day.
Fritz overcame a bloodied elbow to win 3-6, 6-3, 7-6 (0), 4-6, 6-3 on No. 1 Court on Wednesday.
That was a day after he finished off another five-set win over Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard in a match that was halted on Monday night at about 10:15 p.m. after Fritz forced a fifth set, with Wimbledon's 11 p.m. curfew looming.
He completed the win over Diallo a little later than that on Wednesday.
'That's an incredibly hard match," Fritz said. "The fourth set that I lost, I really don't think there's much I did wrong at all.'
Fritz sustained a cut to his elbow after diving to reach a ball when he had break point while trailing 3-2 in the fourth set. While he returned the ball, Diallo won the point and went on to hold serve.
'Tomorrow is going to be a very, a very light hit. I think I've played plenty of tennis,' he said. 'I'm very due a nice, relaxing day.'
___
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Wimbledon's seeds keep going out, and what it means for tennis
Wimbledon started like it does every year, with 64 seeds across the men's and women's singles draw. As the third round begins, just 27 remain — 14 women and 13 men. It's the fewest at a Grand Slam since the 32-seed format was first adopted in 2001. On the women's side, four of the top five are out. Coco Gauff (2) fell to Dayana Yastremska's all-out aggression, while Jessica Pegula (3) ran into an inspired Elisabetta Cocciaretto, both in the first round. Zheng Qinwen (5) left at that stage too, before last year's finalist Jasmine Paolini (4) exited in the second round. Only Aryna Sabalenka, the world No. 1, remains. Advertisement On the men's side, three of the top five remain: Jannik Sinner (1), defending champion Carlos Alcaraz (2) and Taylor Fritz (5). Britain's Jack Draper (4) exited in the second round, while world No. 3 Alexander Zverev went out in the first. Is the seeds falling a trend? Why is it happening? And where does it leave the tournament? 's tennis writers, Charlie Eccleshare and Matt Futterman, attempt to explain. Charlie Eccleshare: There have been some huge shocks, as well as some that are surprising in theory but not actually so much in practice. Gauff's loss felt seismic, but all the signs were there that Wimbledon would be her toughest Grand Slam to win, and Draper's early exit came about because he drew someone with serious grass-court pedigree while he is still figuring it out. Advertisement There are others that were big shocks, but none of the people sent home felt like they were ultimately going to win the tournament. No. 3 seeds Zverev and Pegula fall into that category. Matt Futterman: I would say 'stuff happens,' but I would probably use a different word to 'stuff.' That's the most consistent thing coming out from players and coaches. No matter how good a player is, and no matter what the number is next to their name, it's really hard to win tennis matches and very easy to lose them. Is there a sense there is a wider delta between being 'good' and being 'good on grass' than there was not that long ago? Eccleshare: A lot of it comes from the fact that the lead-in period is so much shorter, and so much more divergent, than the lead-in to an event like the French Open. 'Grass season' is only three weeks before Wimbledon, and while basically all the top players play the same two combined ATP and WTA 1,000 events on clay, their routes to Wimbledon can vary wildly. Some won't play on the grass at all, and some will try and max out their reps, but whatever they do, it's a brief, chaotic period trying to adjust to tennis' most singular surface. Advertisement Futterman: It seems like there are so few players who are actually good on grass. I think what is most important is being able to come to Wimbledon without having a glaring weakness on the surface. Coco Gauff is the prime example. She has three. Her forehand doesn't really work when the ball is low because her grip doesn't allow her to get under it very well. She hates to be rushed, and prefers to stay back a little bit and extend points, but everybody gets rushed on grass because the ball slides through. And then her serve, which is sometimes unbreakable, can get shaky quickly. No one can survive on grass without serving well. She's the perfect grass storm. Other players who struggle have some version of those weaknesses or, more generally, haven't yet figured out how to move well on grass, which is a skill all of its own. The ones who do well either have enough experience to know what to do or have mastered putting their feet in the right places on the turf. Everything flows from that. Advertisement Emma Raducanu's win over Markéta Vondroušová was a prime example. She read the spins, got low and took the ball early. It was a masterclass from someone who clearly knows her way round a grass court against someone else who does, too. It was my favorite match of the tournament to watch so far. Eccleshare: Perhaps the most interesting thing about these upsets is the absence of a defining trend beyond their existence. At the last Grand Slam, the No. 1 and No. 2 seeds were in both singles finals for the first time at a major in 12 years. The depth on both tours has gotten stronger and stronger in the last 10 to 20 years; add in the variance of a surface like grass, which can emphasize hand skills and dexterity over physicality and baseline prowess, and it's not hard to see why there would be more results that go against rankings calculated over a season that is mostly played on different courts. Futterman: To me the defining trend is that tennis is really hard these days and there are a lot of good players. Taylor Fritz, the No. 5 seed, drew Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard and Gabriel Diallo in the first two rounds. Both took him to five sets. Both have nightmare serves. He easily could have lost. He should have lost against Mpetshi Perricard, really. Gauff, the No. 2 seed, drew Dayana Yastremska, who has been a Grand Slam semifinalist. When she's on, she's very hard to beat, and on a fast surface in two out of three sets, she doesn't have to be on for very long to win. Advertisement That's tennis in 2025. Sabalenka has scrapped through plenty of ropey performances this year. So too Alcaraz in round one here. Who has most benefited and who should fans keep an eye on? Eccleshare: In the bottom half of the women's draw, Amanda Anisimova, the No. 13 seed, is now seeded to reach the semifinals. On the men's side, Karen Khachanov, the No. 17 seed, is slated to reach the last eight, with no other seed in his quarter. Just below them in the bottom half, there's a quarter with no seeded players, creating a land of opportunity for qualifier Nicolás Jarry, 18-year-old sensation João Fonseca, flairy Italian Mattia Bellucci and former semifinalist Cameron Norrie. All will fancy their chances. In the top half of the women's draw, there's another unseeded quarter, with four-time Grand Slam champion Naomi Osaka and home player Sonay Kartal the standout names. Advertisement Futterman: Too early to say, but maybe Iga Świątek, or 2022 champion Elena Rybakina. Or possibly Sabalenka, depending on who might be left standing to play her if she makes the final. The thing about upsets is that there is the principle of delayed gratification at work. It can be exciting early on, but also completely shifts the usual dynamic of later rounds at Grand Slams, where the biggest stars are supposed to meet. Eccleshare: It's kind of like a great night out followed by a hangover. In the moment all the upsets are exhilarating, but then reality sets in and you realise that you could be left with some less than thrilling matchups. Futterman: I don't see a downside as long as some of the big names survive into the quarters. If we get to the semifinals and there is no Sinner or Alcaraz or Djokovic, or Sabalenka or Świątek or Keys, then there could be problems. For now, there are some great stories cooking. But a star-driven sport needs to have some stars at the end. Eccleshare: It'll surely (?) settle down, and it could well be that it's the middle rounds, rather than the final stages, that feel the oddest. In spite of all the shocks, the three biggest favorites on the men's side are still here, and the same could be said of the women's draw, with Sabalenka, Keys, Rybakina and, looking at how the draw has shaken out, Świątek. Advertisement Futterman: Wimbledon has long been the tournament where the cream rises. It's the tournament where the greatest players in the game have won a lot. The Big Four. Pete Sampras. Andre Agassi. John McEnroe. Björn Borg. Serena Williams. Venus Williams. Martina Navratilova. Steffi Graf. And on and on. That doesn't mean that a great player doesn't end up beating Milos Raonic or Eugenie Bouchard in the final (sorry for picking on Canada), but I'm betting on getting to a damn good champion in the end. This article originally appeared in The Athletic. Sports Business, Tennis, Women's Tennis 2025 The Athletic Media Company
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Why have there been so many upsets at this year's Wimbledon?
If there's a crumb of comfort for seeded players who have already been dumped out of Wimbledon, then it's this: You're not alone. Tennis' biggest names have been dropping at an unprecedented rate during the first week of this year's tournament, throwing sections of the men's and women's draws wide open. It has led to a period of soul-searching for the world's best players. World No. 3 Jessica Pegula called her 58-minute defeat against Elisabetta Cocciaretto 'probably the worst result I've had all year,' while a tearful Coco Gauff said her straight-sets loss against Dayana Yastremska 'definitely sucks.' Men's third seed Alexander Zverev was even more frank when he spoke of feeling 'very alone' and trapped in a 'hole' on the tennis court following his defeat to Arthur Rinderknech. Pegula and Gauff were joined by fellow top-10 seeds Zheng Qinwen and Paula Badosa in their first-round exits, while Zverev, Lorenzo Musetti, Holger Rune and Daniil Medvedev had similar fates in the men's draw. According to Opta, it's the first time in the Open Era that eight players – men's or women's – seeded inside the top 10 have been eliminated in the first round of a grand slam. What's more, a tournament-record 13 seeded players in the men's draw lost their opening matches, while Gauff became just the third woman in the Open Era to exit in the first round of Wimbledon having won the French Open a few weeks earlier. As of Friday, 19 seeded players have been knocked out of the men's draw and 17 in the women's. For Gauff, she believes the French Open title may have been the issue when it came to her Wimbledon loss. The American star said that a deep run at Roland Garros had hindered her going into the grass-court swing, while also citing it as a wider reason for the glut of upsets we have seen this week. The transition from clay to grass tournaments is short and notoriously demanding for players, making dips in form even more likely. 'I feel like, historically, Wimbledon always has so many upsets in the first rounds here, to be honest,' Gauff told reporters. 'I think it's always a topic. I would say really the quick turnaround – most of the seeds are going deeper in Roland-Garros … and then you have to come and try to adjust to grass. 'This slam out of all of them is the most prone to have upsets because of how quick the turnaround is from clay,' she added. Clay and grass require contrasting tactics and styles of play. On the former, the ball bounces higher and spins more dramatically; on the latter, shots tend to stay low and net-play, rather than long, baseline rallies, tends to be rewarded. Additionally, play is slower and more methodical on clay, while grass is much faster. And while players can stretch and slide on clay, grass courts don't usually offer players the same luxury. 'Movement on grass is completely different,' longtime coach Patrick Mouratoglou previously explained on his YouTube channel. 'It's a completely different feel, it's a completely different way to move.' The clay-to-grass transition has perhaps been made even more challenging by the Wimbledon courts being slower than usual, perhaps due to the hot weather before and at the start of the tournament. Speed of play has been an issue mentioned time and again by players. 'It felt slower and kind of more slippery, I would say, with the movement,' Iga Świątek, a clay-court specialist who has historically struggled on grass, said after her first-round win. 'But also with the heat and everything, the ball bounced differently than how it will in the next days, I assume. … We will have to adjust every day to a little bit different conditions. Grass is a living surface, so it will also change a bit.' Few players have mastered the switch from clay to grass, with Carlos Alcaraz an obvious exception. The Spaniard won his second title at Queen's just two weeks after triumphing at the French Open last month, but even he struggled in his first-round match at Wimbledon, needing five sets to see off Fabio Fognini. More than ever before, the well-worn adage that there are no easy matches at a grand slam has rung true during this year's Wimbledon. It's testament to the depth of talent on display in the sport right now, a potential giant-slayer lurking in every round. 'The game is just really tough,' Frances Tiafoe said after his second-round defeat by Cameron Norrie, a former Wimbledon semifinalist who is unseeded at this year's tournament. 'It's not like how it used to be where you can kind of, I mean, quote, unquote, 'get to your seedings' easier. Now a lot of guys you don't even know come out and play, and by the time you know it, you find yourself battling deep in the fourth and fifth (sets). 'The game has incredible depth right now. If you're not ready to go, you're going to lose. It seems like guys weren't ready to go, ready to play.' That depth is always more evident at a grand slam, where stakes are higher and those lower down the rankings play like they have nothing to lose. And for the bigger names in the draw, the nerves will be greater than at other events, making upsets more commonplace. 'First rounds are really, really tough, especially as a seeded player,' American No. 10 seed Emma Navarro told reporters on Tuesday. 'You have players (who) kind of have nothing to lose and feel like they're just going after everything. You know the consequences of losing first round of a grand slam – that can be overwhelming sometimes. 'It can be easy to feel like there's a mountain ahead of you,' Navarro added. 'The first challenge is maybe not technically or tennis-wise the hardest, but it's your first match at a new venue. Even if you've played there the year before, things always feel different. … It's not always easy to get through that first challenge.' Wimbledon also arrives midway through the calendar year – a point at which fatigue has begun to accumulate and the physical demand of the tour is taking its toll. That's likely to be worse for higher-ranked players, who go deeper in tournaments and end up playing more matches. 'Honestly, I think everyone's just kind of tired,' American sixth seed Madison Keys told reporters after progressing to the third round. 'The season's been long already. It's hard. It's been six months and I feel like we've all just played a lot of matches. … There is bound to be a point in the season where people have dips.' For those lower-ranked players still in the men's and women's draws, this week's Wimbledon could be the chance for a deep and career-defining run at a grand slam. Take one quarter of the women's draw, where only two of the eight remaining players are seeded – a golden opportunity for a dark horse to reach a semifinal or beyond. 'Hopefully no upsets anymore in this tournament – if you know what I mean,' women's top seed Sabalenka said after her second-round win against Marie Bouzková. She was half-joking, half-all-too-aware of what has already happened to some of her biggest rivals.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Why Wimbledon's seeds keep going out, and what it means for tennis
Wimbledon started like it does every year, with 64 seeds across the men's and women's singles draw. As the third round begins, just 27 remain — 14 women and 13 men. It's the fewest at a Grand Slam since the 32-seed format was first adopted in 2001. On the women's side, four of the top five are out. Coco Gauff (2) fell to Dayana Yastremska's all-out aggression, while Jessica Pegula (3) ran into an inspired Elisabetta Cocciaretto, both in the first round. Zheng Qinwen (5) left at that stage too, before last year's finalist Jasmine Paolini (4) exited in the second round. Only Aryna Sabalenka, the world No. 1, remains. Advertisement On the men's side, three of the top five remain: Jannik Sinner (1), defending champion Carlos Alcaraz (2) and Taylor Fritz (5). Britain's Jack Draper (4) exited in the second round, while world No. 3 Alexander Zverev went out in the first. Is the seeds falling a trend? Why is it happening? And where does it leave the tournament? The Athletic's tennis writers, Charlie Eccleshare and Matt Futterman, attempt to explain. Charlie Eccleshare: There have been some huge shocks, as well as some that are surprising in theory but not actually so much in practice. Gauff's loss felt seismic, but all the signs were there that Wimbledon would be her toughest Grand Slam to win, and Draper's early exit came about because he drew someone with serious grass-court pedigree while he is still figuring it out. There are others that were big shocks, but none of the people sent home felt like they were ultimately going to win the tournament. No. 3 seeds Zverev and Pegula fall into that category. Matt Futterman: I would say 'stuff happens,' but I would probably use a different word to 'stuff.' That's the most consistent thing coming out from players and coaches. No matter how good a player is, and no matter what the number is next to their name, it's really hard to win tennis matches and very easy to lose them. Eccleshare: A lot of it comes from the fact that the lead-in period is so much shorter, and so much more divergent, than the lead-in to an event like the French Open. 'Grass season' is only three weeks before Wimbledon, and while basically all the top players play the same two combined ATP and WTA 1,000 events on clay, their routes to Wimbledon can vary wildly. Some won't play on the grass at all, and some will try and max out their reps, but whatever they do, it's a brief, chaotic period trying to adjust to tennis' most singular surface. Advertisement Futterman: It seems like there are so few players who are actually good on grass. I think what is most important is being able to come to Wimbledon without having a glaring weakness on the surface. Coco Gauff is the prime example. She has three. Her forehand doesn't really work when the ball is low, because her grip doesn't allow her to get under it very well. She hates to be rushed, and prefers to stay back a little bit and extend points, but everybody gets rushed on grass because the ball slides through. And then her serve, which is sometimes unbreakable, can get shaky quickly. No one can survive on grass without surviving well She's the perfect grass storm. Other players who struggle have some version of those weaknesses, or, more generally, haven't yet figured out how to move well on grass, which is a skill all of its own. The ones who do well either have enough experience to know what to do, or have mastered putting their feet in the right places on the turf. Everything flows from that. Emma Raducanu's win over Markéta Vondroušová was a prime example. She read the spins, got low and took the ball early. It was a master class from someone who clearly knows her way round a grass court against someone else who does, too. It was my favorite match of the tournament to watch so far. Eccleshare: Perhaps the most interesting thing about these upsets is the absence of a defining trend beyond their existence. At the last Grand Slam, the No. 1 and No. 2 seeds were in in both singles finals for the first time at a major in 12 years. The depth on both tours has gotten stronger and stronger in the last 10 to 20 years; add in the variance of a surface like grass, which can emphasize hand skills and dexterity over physicality and baseline prowess, and it's not hard to see why there would be more results that go against rankings calculated over a season that is mostly played on different courts. Advertisement Futterman: To me the defining trend is that tennis is really hard these days and there are a lot of good players. Taylor Fritz, the No. 5 seed, drew Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard and Gabriel Diallo in the first two rounds. Both took him to five sets. Both have nightmare serves. He easily could have lost. He should have lost against Mpetshi Perricard, really. Gauff, the No. 2 seed, drew Dayana Yastremska, who has been a Grand Slam semifinalist. When she's on, she's very hard to beat, and on a fast surface in two-out-of-three sets, she doesn't have to be on for very long to win. That's tennis in 2025. Sabalenka has scrapped through plenty of ropey performances this year. So too Alcaraz in round one here. Eccleshare: In the bottom half of the women's draw, Amanda Anisimova, the No. 13 seed, is now seeded to reach the semifinals. On the men's side, Karen Khachanov, the No. 17 seed, is slated to reach the last eight, with no other seed in his quarter. Just below them in the bottom half, there's a quarter with no seeded players, creating a land of opportunity for qualifier Nicolás Jarry, 18-year-old sensation João Fonseca, flairy Italian Mattia Bellucci and former semifinalist Cameron Norrie. All will fancy their chances. In the top half of the women's draw, there's another unseeded quarter, with four-time Grand Slam champion Naomi Osaka and home player Sonay Kartal the standout names. Futterman: Too early to say, but maybe Iga Świątek, or 2022 champion Elena Rybakina. Or possibly Sabalenka, depending on who might be left standing to play her if she makes the final. The thing about upsets is that there is the principle of delayed gratification at work. It can be exciting early on, but also completely shifts the usual dynamic of later rounds at Grand Slams, where the biggest stars are supposed to meet. Eccleshare: It's kind of like a great night out followed by a hangover. In the moment all the upsets are exhilarating, but then reality sets in and you realise that you could be left with some less than thrilling matchups. Advertisement Futterman: I don't see a downside as long as some of the big names survive into the quarters. If we get to the semifinals and there is no Sinner or Alcaraz or Djokovic, or Sabalenka or Świątek or Keys, then there could be problems. For now, there are some great stories cooking. But a star-driven sport needs to have some stars at the end. Eccleshare: It'll surely (?) settle down, and it could well be that it's the middle rounds, rather than the final stages, that feel the oddest. In spite of all the shocks, the three biggest favorites on the men's side are still here, and the same could be said of the women's draw, with Sabalenka, Keys, Rybakina and, looking at how the draw has shaken out, Świątek. Futterman: Wimbledon has long been the tournament where the cream rises. It's the tournament where the greatest players in the game have won a lot. The Big Four. Pete Sampras. Andre Agassi. John McEnroe. Björn Borg. Serena Williams. Venus Williams. Martina Navratilova. Steffi Graf. And on and on. That doesn't mean that a great player doesn't end up beating Milos Raonic or Eugenie Bouchard in the final (sorry for picking on Canada), but I'm betting on getting to a damn good champion in the end.
