Emma Raducanu sails through ‘awkward' battle of Britain in Wimbledon opener
Xu is only 17, and she will surely have many more chances to write her own success story at SW19, but she was unable to really test the British number one's nerve, with Raducanu easing to a 6-3 6-3 victory.
🔛🔝
Emma Raducanu completes a hard-fought 6-3, 6-3 victory against Mimi Xu to move into the second round of #Wimbledon pic.twitter.com/J52nMh9zbG
— Wimbledon (@Wimbledon) June 30, 2025
Raducanu and Xu are friendly having hit together at the Billie Jean King Cup finals in November, while Raducanu practises her Mandarin by speaking to Xu's mother.
Shared heritage or not, this was a contest Raducanu wanted to stamp her authority on quickly, and she was particularly vocal, her shouts of 'Come on' punctuating the contest.
'When the draw came out, I can't say I was loving it,' said Raducanu with a smile in her on-court interview.
In the press room later she added: 'First rounds are never easy. It was an interesting dynamic today, so I'm really pleased to have got through that.
'It's really awkward playing a Brit, especially someone younger. She's a great player with big weapons. Congrats for her to get the wild card opportunity. I'm sure she's going to do great things in the future. I think that I just really wanted to win that match.'
It has not been an easy build-up for the 22-year-old, who has been dealing with some bad personal news as well as a niggling back problem.
She smiled and waved as she entered Court One to cheers, though, while Xu had her ears covered by large headphones.
The Swansea schoolgirl made a nervous start and Raducanu immediately broke serve but holding a long third game settled Xu down and she began to show why she is considered such a good prospect.
Xu sent down serves close to 120mph and troubled Raducanu on occasion with her powerful ground strokes but a missed second serve return at 4-3 30-30 showed her inexperience, and the first set disappeared in a slew of errors.
While Xu left the court to change, Raducanu showed she is not above a bit of mid-match litter picking, collecting a champagne cork that had flown from the stands on to the court with a chuckle and putting it in a bin.
'It was a first,' said Raducanu. 'Pretty entertaining. I'm glad they were having a good time. It loosened me up a bit at the end of the first set. I can't not laugh at that.'
Xu's best moments came early in the second set when she twice broke the Raducanu serve, earning her reward for staying on the front foot and going for the lines.
She could not hold her own delivery, though, and Raducanu clinched her first match point after an hour and 25 minutes to maintain her record of never having lost in the first round.
Xu relished the experience, saying: 'It's such an honour to play against her on my debut. She's such a hard worker because I train with her at the NTC (National Tennis Centre).
'Honestly, I don't think I would have wanted it any different. I've learned so much from this match, from playing her, how she deals with these moments and what the differences were there against a top player. I think I can do a lot of things in my game to improve it further.'
Raducanu's path gets significantly tougher from here with in-form former champion Marketa Vondrousova up next on Wednesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
17 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Bring back human line judges, Wimbledon
Wimbledon may seem the last place to act as a backdrop to science fiction. But the fact is in the home of strawberries, cream and Sir David Beckham on the front row of the Royal Box we are seeing unfold this fortnight a narrative that might well serve as the starting point for the next iteration of the Terminator franchise. On the crisp lawns of the All England Club we are in the midst of a battle between humanity and the computer. In SW19 there is a growing rage against the machines. This year it was decided to dispense with line judges. The problem, we were told, is they made mistakes. And computers apparently don't. So never mind that, in their smart Ralph Lauren blazers, the lovely old humans add to the colour of the event, never mind that part of the fun is seeing them swerve at the last moment to avoid a 130mph Jannik Sinner serve, they were to be replaced by something called Electronic Line Calling. Error was to be removed. Everything was to become unequivocal. Trust the machine, we were told, and it will get it right. The pursuit of perfection in adjudication has been an ambition of Wimbledon's ever since John McEnroe erupted on No 1 Court back in 1981. McEnroe's beef that day was simple: his eyesight was better than the umpire's. He could see his shot was on the line, even as it was called out. 'You cannot be serious,' he whined, delivering the comment that will doubtless serve as his epitaph. This was human error exposed: a wrong call horribly skewing the course of the match. Then, in 2007, it seemed such disputes were behind us. Hawk-Eye was introduced, a piece of camera technology used in cricket that tracked the ball and could decide on its trajectory. Players were entitled to challenge a line judge's call and Hawk-Eye would act as the court of appeal. The process became part of the fun, the crowd clapping as the animation was played on the court's scoreboard, cooing in delight at its analysis. And this hybrid system served to everyone's satisfaction. It was reckoned essentially foolproof. Research has estimated that human line judges get around eight per cent of calls wrong. As my colleague Simon Briggs wrote at the weekend, if humans are around 92 per cent accurate, and robots 98 per cent accurate, then both should be 99.84 per cent accurate. That, however, was not deemed enough for the Wimbledon authorities. They decided to go entirely robot. Get rid of the human bit and argument would be redundant. There was just one problem: what if the robots weren't as good as we assumed? What if the disembodied AI voices were too quiet to be properly heard? What if the machines got it wrong? Across all the courts this year, we have seen players stand looking bemused at calls, if not channelling their inner McEnroe then at least wondering why, given their eyesight is generally magnificent, they cannot believe what they are seeing. Time and again, we have seen mechanical calls that have just looked wrong, just ask Jack Draper and Emma Raducanu. Less Artificial Intelligence more Artificial Myopia. And if they are in doubt, the players have no recourse. There is no challenge system. Instead on the scoreboard will come up a Hawk-Eye animation of a 'close call'. But given the Hawk-Eye and the computer are working from the same data, the result is always the same. 'It's kind of disappointing,' said Raducanu earlier this week, 'that the calls can be so wrong.' The nadir came when the new British hope Sonay Kartal was playing Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova on Sunday on Centre Court. A Kartal shot landed so far beyond the line it was practically in Clapham. Pavlyuchenko, seeing it clearly fall in the wrong place, returned before looking to the umpire to intervene. But no disembodied call came from the machines. And the umpire, apparently now required always to follow what AI instructs, did not intervene, rule it was out and give the point to the Russian. Instead, to much bemusement all round, he stopped play, eventually ruling the point be played again. This time, Kartal won it. As it happened, the overall result was not affected: Pavyluchenko won the match. But that could have been the moment technology completely altered destiny. And it simply would not have happened under the old system. A line judge would have had to be singularly incompetent not to have seen what happened. With a magnificent irony, the Wimbledon authorities later blamed 'human error' for the mistake. Apparently the machinery had been inappropriately switched off. But that is not the point. If you rely on machines instead of humanity, if you surrender to 'Skynet' as they did in the days of Terminator, you are inevitably prone to malfunction. Besides, the fact is, human error is an integral part of sport. Jeopardy is a central tenet to our enjoyment. Part of the attraction of Rory McIlroy is because he fluffs his chances. Centre Court is in a growing love affair with Carlos Alcaraz partly because he makes mistakes. He is human, not a machine. Just as VAR is sucking the joy from football in the vain attempt to eliminate error, what is happening across Wimbledon right now is final proof that technology is no saviour. Let's hope this fortnight marks the end of the experiment and next year we see the line judges properly restored to their position, crouching behind the baseline. Because the result from Wimbledon is clear: Humans 1 Machines 0.
Daily Mirror
18 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Lando Norris handed McLaren warning as controversial penalty proves crucial
Oscar Piastri was beaten to British Grand Prix victory by McLaren team-mate Lando Norris after the Aussie was handed a controversial 10-second penalty, accused of 'erratic' driving behind the safety car Lando Norris has been warned by his McLaren team principal that team-mate and title rival Oscar Piastri will turn his British Grand Prix pain into motivation for his championship challenge. The Brit is only eight points shy of Piastri halfway through the season, following his first triumph at a drenched Silverstone on home soil. Norris put in a flawless performance to capitalise on Piastri's 10-second penalty for "erratic braking" behind the safety car. But the Aussie was unhappy with the stewards' decision, sarcastically stating after the race: "Apparently you can't brake behind the safety car anymore." McLaren team principal Andrea Stella anticipates a strong comeback from Piastri at the Belgian Grand Prix at the end of July. "I have to say that the penalty was very harsh," said the Italian, who was celebrating the team's first win at their home grand prix in seventeen years. "There are a few things to review, but in itself, now the penalty has been decided and has been served, we move on. We will see if there's anything to learn on our side and I'm sure Oscar will use this motivation for being even more determined for the races to come and try and win as many races as possible." A collision with Piastri in Canada three weeks ago left Norris' championship aspirations looking bleak. But back-to-back victories in Austria and at Silverstone have turned the tables – a very handy time for the Brit to win two races in a row for the first time in his Formula 1 career. Norris has notched up his fourth win of the season, trailing Piastri by just one victory. Defending champion Max Verstappen, who spun shortly after Piastri had braked hard in front of him behind the safety car before recovering to finish fifth, sits third in the standings and 69 points behind. At Silverstone, Norris' victory lap was momentarily disrupted when a photographer tripped, causing him to sustain a minor nose injury. Nonetheless, he later joined Piastri and McLaren CEO Zak Brown on the Silverstone fan stage, basking in the cheers of a record-breaking 168,000-strong British crowd. "It's two wins in a row, but they've not come easy by any means," Norris admitted. "We've had good fights, but they're pretty strenuous, exhausting weekends because you're fighting for hundredths and thousandths of a second and you're fighting for perfection in every session. "I'm also going up against some pretty good drivers. So, it takes a lot out of you, especially when you have a race like Sunday." He will now have two weekends off to recover, though, before the trip to Belgium later this month. That Spa-Francorchamps race will be followed by the Hungarian Grand Prix, the final race before the summer break. A gruelling run-in of 10 races in 15 weeks then begins with the Dutch Grand Prix at the end of August.
Telegraph
21 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Red Bull punished for small-team mentality
Once again the British Grand Prix at Silverstone produced a thrilling race thanks in part to plenty of traditional British summer weather throughout the afternoon. In the end it was another McLaren one-two finish, but it was certainly not without its jeopardy with numerous crashes and cars running off, causing several safety Cars and virtual safety cars. On a day like Sunday it is incredibly difficult for the teams to get it right. That is because the conditions were changeable, which meant at times the intermediates were the correct tyres and at other times it was slicks. When the rain comes and goes as it did, it is a nightmare for the strategists. To get the best from the race you want to be the first to make the right call on tyres, but by doing it before anyone else you are inevitably taking a gamble. Strategy is king in the rain Strategy is a living thing in Formula One, particularly in the wet. Silverstone is a difficult track because it is so large. It could be raining heavily in one sector but largely dry in another. You have to balance what might be quickest with what is the biggest risk. There will be plenty of strategists with fried brains after that race. Some teams and drivers got it right, others failed. I was surprised at some of the choices of the top teams on Sunday, who appeared to take too much risk and throw away good positions. In a race like this, you can almost split the field in two. If you are in the bottom half of the grid – or in a quick car but out of position – you want to take gambles because you might pull a result out of it that could bag you a disproportionate amount of points. That is what Sauber managed with Nico Hulkenberg, taking 15 points home for third – that accounts for more than a third of the team's total points in 2025. Verstappen paid for team's gamble Red Bull had Max Verstappen on pole but the race quickly got away from him. The skinny, low-downforce rear wing that he ran on Saturday helped him to beat the McLarens in qualifying but was the cause of his downfall in the damp on Sunday. You could see how the car was getting away from him, with numerous slides and one big spin on the race restart. You do not see that often from Verstappen. I think Red Bull made an error in setting up Verstappen's car like this – it was too bold a decision. They would have known that the weather was unpredictable for the race but they were too focused on taking pole position and hoping they could sort it out from there. LAP 21/22 Max Verstappen spins at the restart! 😵 He drops from P2 to P9 ⬇️ #F1 #BritishGP — Formula 1 (@F1) July 6, 2025 This meant that to get the balance on the car right in the wet, they would have had to take off downforce from the front wing. This would have in turn given him even less overall downforce, which is not what you want in slippery conditions. He paid the price and faded in the race, finishing fifth. This is all a bit small team-ish from Red Bull and naive, in my view. Verstappen is still fighting the McLarens for the championship, though his hopes are diminishing. For a team that have won four drivers' and two constructors' titles in the last four seasons, it was a bit of an oddball decision. McLaren, on the other hand, focused on the race rather than qualifying and reaped the rewards. A team like Red Bull should go into the weekend with the best set-up for the race and look at the bigger picture. They did not. Just because they do not have the best car any more does not mean they should be making decisions like this. Red Bull not the only giants to fall Mercedes, too, made some strange choices. The strangest was bringing George Russell in at the end of the formation lap to switch to slick tyres, in particular the hard slicks rather than the mediums or softs. Every team seemed to think that it was going to rain 10 or so laps into the race so Mercedes were taking a big risk. It ended up putting them on the back foot as, inevitably, Russell had to switch to intermediates when the rain returned. He never got back into contention. If Russell had started towards the back of the grid you could understand it more. He started fourth though and was in contention at the start, alongside the McLarens, Red Bull and Ferraris. In any case, the soft slick should have been the choice, not the hards. The soft gives you more grip in the wet and the dry and is quicker to get up to temperature than the hard tyre. The extra wear that it would suffer in damp, cold conditions is negligible, relative to the hard or medium. I think Mercedes were looking for the miracle from lap one, but by the end of the 12th lap a miracle is exactly what they needed. McLaren were in contention in a wet/dry race last year but made some odd strategy calls that cost them victory. They managed to bring it home again this year (though their car has a bigger advantage, especially in the wet because of how it treats its tyres) but they were not immune from questionable decisions, either. Given the size of their advantage towards the end of the race, it was a risk to pit both Oscar Piastri and Lando Norris when they did on laps 43 and 44. They had no real competition from behind – Hulkenberg was nearly a minute adrift in third on lap 43 – and the track was still quite tricky, as Piastri showed by going off once he went on to the slicks. They could have just taken a lap or even two more to see the lap times of those behind them, react when they needed to and reduced their chances of crashing out. They won so they will not worry about that too much on Monday, but I think they took too much of a risk. The sides who got it right I'd also give two teams further down the grid, Aston Martin and Sauber, a firm pat on the back for their strategies. Hulkenberg did not take any gambles, drove a fairly uneventful and straightforward race in tough conditions and from 19th he took home his first career podium. Lance Stroll, who seems to thrive in the wet, was in contention for that podium until late on but still managed to bring home a decent haul of points for his team. It was an excellent example of what is possible by making the right decisions at the right time and not trying to be heroes.
