June's real sporting magic

Forget soccer: From the longest match to the Queen to Maria Sharapova, you'remissing an epic Wimbledon

Maria Sharapova is through to the fourth round, setting up an epic match with...
Serena Williams.
Roger Federer may not be as done as everyone thinks he is.
Photo courtesy of Roger Federer
John Isner went from winning the longest match in tennis history to losing theshortest one of this year's Wimbledon.

Nothing beats Wimbledon in June. The first day of summer, strawberry season, and even my birthday all pale in comparison.

Every Wimbledon is a Wimbledon to watch (and maybe now that the U.S. is out of the World Cup, people will start paying attention to the tourney they've been missing).

Wimbledon makes good players great, great players legendary. It’s hard to forget the recent dominance of the Williams sisters, the epics between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal (who said no thanks to meeting the Queen this week to focus on his game), and last year’s marathon between Federer and Andy Roddick.

Even better, Wimbledon is a huge relief from the French Open. To be charitable, the French Open is fickle.

The relief of Federer’s win last year and the supremacy of Rafael Nadal put a spring in one’s step at Roland Garros. But how many one-hit wonders, who should have been no-hit wonders, has the French Open produced? On the men’s side Gaston Gaudio and on the women’s side Anastasia Myskina, Ana Ivanovic, and this year’s surprise winner Francesca Schiavone.

Don’t believe me? Schiavone dive-bombed out of Wimbledon with a loss to Vera Dushevina on the very first day of the tournament. Schiavone is a real scrapper — deeply dedicated, very athletic, and willing to fight for every point. But you can’t expect an opponent on grass, especially a superior opponent, to sink into the fickle red clay.

Even six-time winner Federer very nearly lost on the first day to unranked Alejandro Falla in five hard-fought sets. Too many spectators and commentators see the death knell of a career in the slightest wobble in Federer’s game.

Federer may be rusty, waning, distracted, or disturbed by the prospect of a resurgent Nadal. But if Federer, the wizard of Wimbledon, nearly tumbled out in round one, chalk it up to the rigor of this tournament: Tennis’s greatest testing ground.

If that isn't evidence enough, America's serving sensation John Isner and opponent Nichloas Mahut of France completed an 11-hour-and-five-minute match with a mind boggling score of 6-4, 3-6, 6-7, 7-6, 70-68. That's right, readers: 70-68. The match stretched over two days. The players outlasted the light one day tied at 59-59 in a truly epic fifth set that took over eight hours.

That final set taken by itself would rank high on the list of the longest matches in tennis history. The statistics are just shocking but here's my favorite. Isner served 112 aces while Mahut served 103. And that was still the first round. Just imagine what's next. (Isner can't, he promptly lost his next match, which turned out to be the shortest match at this year's Wimbledon.)

Wimbledon's clearly for warriors, and what’s special about this year is the kind of uncertainty that surrounds it — a swimmer stuck in shark tank with blood in the water could relate.

This is not a question of red clay or green grass. Rather, there's a “Twilight of the Gods” feel about the court. The old guard is fading, perhaps done in by persistent over scheduling that leads to exhaustion and injury. Change is on the way, but a new order has yet to emerge. This is as true of the players as of the sport.

Over this next week, many storylines will emerge. On the women’s side, emergent challengers of the last years Jelena Jankovic and even Maria Sharapova, seemed to be in various states of disrepair. But both are through to the fourth round with Sharapova set to met Serena Williams in an epic Monday match. Belgians and major winners Kim Clijsters and Justine Henin have returned to good form after brief retirements, but now they have to play each other in the fourth round.

So it seems we should all be grateful for last year’s champion Serena Williams and her sister five-time champion Venus Williams. Maybe not too grateful: It can certainly go to their heads. But these two may represent the last great swan song of American tennis. Watching them work at Wimbledon is a privilege.

Venus more than anyone of late has been queen of this court. She’s designed for grass — lanky, swift, and decisive with a booming serve. Her statistics here are just plan sick. It may be greedy to want her to win a sixth title because she’s been the best player this whole year.

In both the Australian and French Open, Venus was clearly the one to beat. In both tournaments, her will or concentration or energy lapsed at just the wrong moment. So, my vote’s for Venus and my hope is that the women’s side of the sport straightens itself out, and new stars, with some lasting power, arrive.

As for the men? It’s hard not to root for a Federer-Nadal final again, but many are predicting this is Federer’s year to be knocked out early.

Americans are rooting for Andy Roddick to repeat his trip to the final, even if he has to go through Federer. But as healthy as the men’s game seems to be — with hungry challengers everywhere — it’s hard to see who will emerge to seize the crown from Federer and Nadal. One or the other seems odds on favorite this year.

When I started watching tennis, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Steffi Graf, and Monica Seles were still dominant. Federer and the Williams were waiting in the wings. I’m excited to watch yet another Wimbledon unfold with favorite players I’ve watched for years.

But, in spite of Isner's inhuman display of stamina, I’m left wondering who’s waiting in the wings now. And I’m wondering even more what the United States Tennis Association is doing about it.

unspecified

Movie Review

Texas Little League team swings for the fences in You Gotta Believe

Photo courtesy of Well Go USA Entertainment

Michael Cash and cast of You Gotta Believe.

Making an inspiring sports movie is not a complicated formula. There are plenty of examples of teams, professional or not, that have overcome the odds to achieve success, either on the field of play or in life in general. While some tweaking is natural to create a little extra drama, usually filmmakers just need to do a decent recreation of real events and the story takes care of itself.

That ability would seem to be beyond the scope of director Ty Roberts and writer Lane Garrison, who have attempted to tell two Fort Worth-centric stories in a row: 2021’s 12 Mighty Orphans and now You Gotta Believe. This one is about the 2002 Westside Little League team that captured the country’s attention by making an improbable run to the Little League World Series, the first time a Fort Worth team had made it that far since 1960.

As the film tells it, the team was one of the worst in the league but was chosen to compete in the postseason tournament for financial reasons. The team was led by coaches Bobby Ratliff (Luke Wilson) and Jon Kelly (Greg Kinnear), both of which had sons on the team. When Bobby is diagnosed with melanoma, the team dedicates their run to him, and somehow starts playing better than they’ve ever played before.

The story gives off the vibes of past youth-centered baseball movies, especially The Sandlot, which the filmmakers try to capitalize on by casting that film’s Patrick Renna (aka Ham) in a small role. Among the players are a geeky know-it-all, a preening guy who cares more about looking good than playing well, and a star whose life doesn’t always allow him to play for the team. Unfortunately, the film doesn’t have the same charm as similar films and spends much less time letting the players shine than you might think.

Instead, the stories of the coaches are given equal, if not more, attention to anything the players are doing on the field. In the case of Bobby, that’s understandable, especially since his illness served as an inspiration for the team. But the level of detail Roberts and Garrison give to his treatment (and, for some reason, Jon’s unhappiness in his own work) is odd. Even worse, they don’t do an effective job at creating the emotional drama such an experience should generate.

Things don’t get much better when they do turn to the baseball action. The editing of the games/practices is heavy, to the point that it’s unclear if any of the kid actors can actually play or not. But the worst sin is that the filmmakers fail to convey the excitement of what the team was accomplishing. Only the final game of their run has any momentum to it at all, which the filmmakers try to sabotage by inserting a moment that insults the intelligence of any baseball fan.

Wilson (who also starred in 12 Mighty Orphans) and Kinnear remain solid screen presences, making the film watchable even when the story being told is not. Sarah Gadon and Molly Parker play their wives, and they too are interesting to watch. The child actors have varying levels of experience, and although none of them stand out, neither do they take away from the film.

You Gotta Believe should have been a great showcase for Fort Worth (although only certain scenes were actually filmed there) and the team that did the city proud over 20 years ago. Instead, it’s an ineffectual sports movie that doesn’t do them justice, a real shame given the heart that the real story has.

---

You Gotta Believe is now playing in theaters. Check out red-carpet photos from the film's world premiere in Fort Worth here.

movies film