2014 Wimbledon Draw

[El Dude]

I think losing a final (ie the biggest stage in the sport) is a dent against a player's greatness. Obviously a player in the final has a chance to win the prize everyone wants most but you also risk more legacy wise. I think the hypothetical player who goes 8-0 in finals but loses the occasional QF, Semis, or earlier is greater than someone who is 8-8 in finals. JMO.

I'm going to have to disagree with your logic here and it mainly has to do with context. Look at Ivan Lendl - 8-11 in Finals, but his career span was perhaps the hardest in terms of competition of any player in the history of the game. He played against a peak Borg, Connors and McEnroe, as well as Wilander, Edberg, and Becker, and then Sampras, Agassi, and Courier.

Another example is Roger Federer at the French Open. There is no shame in his 1-4 record in Finals and it is certainly better than if he had been 1-0. 1-4 means he was better than every other player on clay except for the greatest clay court player the world has ever seen. 1-0 means he would have had one great tournament.

 

[Kieran]

^^ Exactly.

When two great players meet in a final, one of them loses. That's not just statistical, it's a fact. But it doesn't mean that the player who lost has anything to be ashamed of. The 1980 Wimbledon final is not only remembered because Borg won it - his opponent had a glorious day too...

 

[the AntiPusher]

I still hold out some hope for the US Open but unfortunately they have switched balls there too which has slowed down play considerably. When Pete was obviously well past it the last 2 years I was thinking he'd find the old magic at Wimbledon but it ended up being the US Open where he would play well (making 3 straight finals there and winning his last major).

One slight difference, Pete had a Hammer! Sure he didn't have the backhand or even the fh, although Pete's running fh was one of the best ever. His serve really put a ton of pressure on the opposition. It's was the equivalent of heat guided missile and allowed him to secured the perfect storm finish of his career at the USO

 

[Denis]

I'm quite happy with Andy's draw although I'll certainly be squirming if he meets Dimitrov in the quarter-finals. Nadal has a bit of a nightmare draw, with Klizan, Rosol, Karlovic and Monfils all possible opponents before the quarter finals, I'm very interested to see how he does.

Federer has a fairly tricky draw but if (a big "if") he has the focus and hunger to do so, he shouldn't have a problem reaching the latter stages. I don't see Novak losing anywhere until at least the quarter-finals either.

Stan is at risk of not reaching the last eight. Lopez or Isner in the fourth round, if he gets that far without beating himself with the weight of expectation again.

Tsonga vs Melzer the pick of the opening matches!

Klizan has two career match wins on grass, is left-handed, and only plays top 100 tennis on clay. Opponents at this level don't come much easier than this. Monfils is a joke too.

 

[Front242]

Agree about Klizan but then if we go by the element of surprise we need look no further than Stakhovsky, Rosol and Darcis who were hardly world beaters before those big wins either so Klizan may get divine intervention too or not. Probably not but you never know.

 

[Kieran]

I believe that Becker's insistence that Novak play one-handed off the backhand, and slice his forehands was a contributing factor to him losing the FO final - but could win him Wimbledon!

[video=youtube]http://youtu.be/JVvPom6l_Z8?t=2h6m13s[/video]

 

[DarthFed]

I think losing a final (ie the biggest stage in the sport) is a dent against a player's greatness. Obviously a player in the final has a chance to win the prize everyone wants most but you also risk more legacy wise. I think the hypothetical player who goes 8-0 in finals but loses the occasional QF, Semis, or earlier is greater than someone who is 8-8 in finals. JMO.

I'm going to have to disagree with your logic here and it mainly has to do with context. Look at Ivan Lendl - 8-11 in Finals, but his career span was perhaps the hardest in terms of competition of any player in the history of the game. He played against a peak Borg, Connors and McEnroe, as well as Wilander, Edberg, and Becker, and then Sampras, Agassi, and Courier.

Another example is Roger Federer at the French Open. There is no shame in his 1-4 record in Finals and it is certainly better than if he had been 1-0. 1-4 means he was better than every other player on clay except for the greatest clay court player the world has ever seen. 1-0 means he would have had one great tournament.

That depends on whether you consider making a final a good tournament for someone who has made 20+ finals and won 17 slams. IMO, Roger's career absolutely is greater if he is 1-0 in RG finals. Better H2H vs. Nadal and 17-3 in GS finals. That's definitely greater IMO.

Lendl won enough to be an all time great but his place is a little lower than it should have been due to that laughable record in GS finals.

 

[atttomole]

I dont think Roger falls before quarters.. hell I even pick him up as an eventual winner ( a fan can dream)

For Rafa really on paper none of the names really seem to be capable of giving him a run for money .. but who know.. I don' think Rosol will happen again..

Grigor can make a good run deep this time.. but he has disappointed time and again in slams... we will see

Nole will make it to Finals.. he has it easy.. no one is really gonna trouble him..

I wish 2012 repeats .. Rafa goes out to Rosol..Federer even plays JB then..

If Nole plays Murray he is a goner for sure. Nole has a pretty tough draw and we know he is mentally dodgy in the majors. I think he might get upset early here and he won't be getting past Murray. If Roger makes the final I'd rather see Nole than Murray but I'd like his chances vs. either. It is time for Roger to step up and show he can still play well at a major and this is the place and draw to do it. And he can break the tie with Pete who has the tiebreaker as greatest on grass IMO (7-0 in finals vs. 7-1).

I do not understand why you say Pete has the tiebreaker when he played in fewer finals. So Roger becomes a lesser player on grass because he lost an extra final that he played?

I wouldn't say Roger's any less a player, but during his reign, he could have been more offensive out there and avoided some of those upsets; esp. when leading 2-0 or 2-1 in sets! Federer was fortunate Andy choked having him on the ropes in '09! So I give Sampras a little more credit for his 7 wins with the grass being more challenging to win on! It's a baseline haven now and not half as entertaining to watch! These long points with little net play is so boring! Borg and Connors were baseliners, but they knew they had to come into the net more than to shake hands and collect the check! :angel:

I also remember Roger beating Pete in 2001 playing offensive tennis. It is well known that the grass changed, and Roger won playing from the baseline, so he did not need to be offensive when he was winning from the base line. Roger's play changed with the change of the grass conditions. I think if he was forced to play offensive, he who would have. And you could make the same argument about Goran choking against Pete.

 

[DarthFed]

^^ Exactly.

When two great players meet in a final, one of them loses. That's not just statistical, it's a fact. But it doesn't mean that the player who lost has anything to be ashamed of. The 1980 Wimbledon final is not only remembered because Borg won it - his opponent had a glorious day too...

If losing a 1 on 1 competition is nothing to be ashamed of I'd like to know what is :nono

 

[atttomole]

I dont think Roger falls before quarters.. hell I even pick him up as an eventual winner ( a fan can dream)

For Rafa really on paper none of the names really seem to be capable of giving him a run for money .. but who know.. I don' think Rosol will happen again..

Grigor can make a good run deep this time.. but he has disappointed time and again in slams... we will see

Nole will make it to Finals.. he has it easy.. no one is really gonna trouble him..

I wish 2012 repeats .. Rafa goes out to Rosol..Federer even plays JB then..

If Nole plays Murray he is a goner for sure. Nole has a pretty tough draw and we know he is mentally dodgy in the majors. I think he might get upset early here and he won't be getting past Murray. If Roger makes the final I'd rather see Nole than Murray but I'd like his chances vs. either. It is time for Roger to step up and show he can still play well at a major and this is the place and draw to do it. And he can break the tie with Pete who has the tiebreaker as greatest on grass IMO (7-0 in finals vs. 7-1).

I do not understand why you say Pete has the tiebreaker when he played in fewer finals. So Roger becomes a lesser player on grass because he lost an extra final that he played?

I think losing a final (ie the biggest stage in the sport) is a dent against a player's greatness. Obviously a player in the final has a chance to win the prize everyone wants most but you also risk more legacy wise. I think the hypothetical player who goes 8-0 in finals but loses the occasional QF, Semis, or earlier is greater than someone who is 8-8 in finals. JMO.

Maybe it is an American thing but one good example is the Buffalo Bills in the NFL. They lost 4 straight Super Bowls and are often the target of any jokes regarding futility on the big stage. If they'd have lost just 2 SB's and 2 AFC title games nobody would think twice about them. In that line of thinking, Pete stepped up and took care of business in every final whereas Roger didn't in 2008.

I guess it is a cultural thing. One can not more credit for reaching fewer finals and wining more of those finals, than one who reaching more finals and wining the same amount. I would agree, if say, Roger had a 6-2 record at Wimbledon. Its like giving credit to Pete for not doing much at RG, and therefore not having a worse record at grand slam finals, or not meeting Agassi often on slower surfaces.

 

[britbox]

I think losing a final (ie the biggest stage in the sport) is a dent against a player's greatness. Obviously a player in the final has a chance to win the prize everyone wants most but you also risk more legacy wise. I think the hypothetical player who goes 8-0 in finals but loses the occasional QF, Semis, or earlier is greater than someone who is 8-8 in finals. JMO.

I'm going to have to disagree with your logic here and it mainly has to do with context. Look at Ivan Lendl - 8-11 in Finals, but his career span was perhaps the hardest in terms of competition of any player in the history of the game. He played against a peak Borg, Connors and McEnroe, as well as Wilander, Edberg, and Becker, and then Sampras, Agassi, and Courier.

Another example is Roger Federer at the French Open. There is no shame in his 1-4 record in Finals and it is certainly better than if he had been 1-0. 1-4 means he was better than every other player on clay except for the greatest clay court player the world has ever seen. 1-0 means he would have had one great tournament.

That depends on whether you consider making a final a good tournament for someone who has made 20+ finals and won 17 slams. IMO, Roger's career absolutely is greater if he is 1-0 in RG finals. Better H2H vs. Nadal and 17-3 in GS finals. That's definitely greater IMO.

Lendl won enough to be an all time great but his place is a little lower than it should have been due to that laughable record in GS finals.

So you're saying Lendl's legacy would be stronger if he got knocked out in the first round of Wimbledon rather than being a losing finalist?

Don't agree at all. 8-11 is a better record than 8-0 for me, because he made 11 other finals rather than losing earlier... the points awarded would also suggest the same.

 

[DarthFed]

^ You have to be in it to win it but to me there are extra points of greatness earned or "subtracted" depending on how well a person plays in the grandest stage of sports. Pete didn't make that extra final at Wimbledon that Roger did so we don't know if he would have fallen. But to me losing the QF easily to Krajicek is less a dent against him than Roger losing the 5 setter to Nadal. Yes it sounds crazy typing it but it is how I see it. Pete stepped up every time in the final and got it done, Roger had the one blemish on the big stage at SW 19.

 

[DarthFed]

I think losing a final (ie the biggest stage in the sport) is a dent against a player's greatness. Obviously a player in the final has a chance to win the prize everyone wants most but you also risk more legacy wise. I think the hypothetical player who goes 8-0 in finals but loses the occasional QF, Semis, or earlier is greater than someone who is 8-8 in finals. JMO.

I'm going to have to disagree with your logic here and it mainly has to do with context. Look at Ivan Lendl - 8-11 in Finals, but his career span was perhaps the hardest in terms of competition of any player in the history of the game. He played against a peak Borg, Connors and McEnroe, as well as Wilander, Edberg, and Becker, and then Sampras, Agassi, and Courier.

Another example is Roger Federer at the French Open. There is no shame in his 1-4 record in Finals and it is certainly better than if he had been 1-0. 1-4 means he was better than every other player on clay except for the greatest clay court player the world has ever seen. 1-0 means he would have had one great tournament.

That depends on whether you consider making a final a good tournament for someone who has made 20+ finals and won 17 slams. IMO, Roger's career absolutely is greater if he is 1-0 in RG finals. Better H2H vs. Nadal and 17-3 in GS finals. That's definitely greater IMO.

Lendl won enough to be an all time great but his place is a little lower than it should have been due to that laughable record in GS finals.

So you're saying Lendl's legacy would be stronger if he got knocked out in the first round of Wimbledon rather than being a losing finalist?

Don't agree at all. 8-11 is a better record than 8-0 for me, because he made 11 other finals rather than losing earlier... the points awarded would also suggest the same.

That one is a grayer area I will admit since Llendl never won Wimbledon. It at least makes him more respectable on grass than if he was routinely bounced in the 1st week. So making 1 and only 1 final there adds a little to his resume. Different scenario for the likes of Roger on grass where he has won a ton. Making the final and losing in 08 certainly didn't add to his resume and as you see IMO I think it subtracted a bit (Not much of course but I still think he looks greater at 7-0).

And I know you watch the NFL. So as another example in comparing Montana and Brady I'd say the former is a greater QB based on how they played in the Super Bowls. Brady has been to an extra Super Bowl, will finish with better stats, but on the biggest stage Montana was impeccable. Same with Jordan in NBA. No way you can really compare guys like Lebron and Kobe as great as they are.

 

[Moxie]

^ You have to be in it to win it but to me there are extra points of greatness earned or "subtracted" depending on how well a person plays in the grandest stage of sports. Pete didn't make that extra final at Wimbledon that Roger did so we don't know if he would have fallen. But to me losing the QF easily to Krajicek is less a dent against him than Roger losing the 5 setter to Nadal. Yes it sounds crazy typing it but it is how I see it. Pete stepped up every time in the final and got it done, Roger had the one blemish on the big stage at SW 19.

Darth, you always make it clear that's how you feel, and it's honest, but it does sound a little kooky. as britbox says, the points indicate that, as well. Every step closer to the trophy is better than a step farther away. I know you think that everything that's not winning is all for naught, but a final is better than a SF is better than a QF, etc.

Do I think that Nadal losing in Rnd 2 or 1 to Rosol or Darcis is the same as losing in the final to Federer? Or "better" for the legacy? No, I don't.

 

[Kieran]

^^ Exactly.

When two great players meet in a final, one of them loses. That's not just statistical, it's a fact. But it doesn't mean that the player who lost has anything to be ashamed of. The 1980 Wimbledon final is not only remembered because Borg won it - his opponent had a glorious day too...

If losing a 1 on 1 competition is nothing to be ashamed of I'd like to know what is :nono

If that's not a black and white view of things, I don't know what is. :nono

"Shame" should only be felt if someone's feeling guilty. What's to feel guilty about if you try your dangdest and lose to the better player? There's no shame in that. It's competition and someone has to lose, but how they lose is up to them.

And bear in mind, there are many losses which are springboards to future success. These losses are actually constructive and the losing player gained from them, despite not winning the match...

 

[DarthFed]

^^ Exactly.

When two great players meet in a final, one of them loses. That's not just statistical, it's a fact. But it doesn't mean that the player who lost has anything to be ashamed of. The 1980 Wimbledon final is not only remembered because Borg won it - his opponent had a glorious day too...

If losing a 1 on 1 competition is nothing to be ashamed of I'd like to know what is :nono

If that's not a black and white view of things, I don't know what is. :nono

"Shame" should only be felt if someone's feeling guilty. What's to feel guilty about if you try your dangdest and lose to the better player? There's no shame in that. It's competition and someone has to lose, but how they lose is up to them.

And bear in mind, there are many losses which are springboards to future success. These losses are actually constructive and the losing player gained from them, despite not winning the match...

Shame is often felt when you aren't good enough to achieve something. I think it's normal. Those who don't have that aren't great competitors. Losses can prove to lead to better things, mostly the case for upcoming players but even for established greats. But it might be the shame they felt from a certain loss or losses that does it.

I've always maintained that Roger's 2012 was kickstarted by the really bad losses at Wimbledon and USO that year. Those losses to Tsonga and Nole from 2 sets up ticked him off and that helped lead to a much better year in 2012. But those were certainly losses he should have been VERY ashamed of and the reaction to them makes me think he was.

 

[Kieran]

Shame is often felt when you aren't good enough to achieve something. I think it's normal. Those who don't have that aren't great competitors. Losses can prove to lead to better things, mostly the case for upcoming players but even for established greats. But it might be the shame they felt from a certain loss or losses that does it.

I've always maintained that Roger's 2012 was kickstarted by the really bad losses at Wimbledon and USO that year. Those losses to Tsonga and Nole from 2 sets up ticked him off and that helped lead to a much better year in 2012. But those were certainly losses he should have been VERY ashamed of and the reaction to them makes me think he was.

No, no, no. "Shame" is a emotion of guilt. There's no need for shame once you've done your best in competition. For example, Nadal lost the 2006 Wimbledon final - he wasn't good enough to win it, yet, but he did his best. It was progress from 2005, and progress towards 2007, from which he continually progressed until winning it.

At no stage would he have felt shame. Disappointment - yes. But that's a natural response to defeat. And he used that disappointment as a springboard to eventual success.

But he had no reason to feel shame...

 

[tented]

Shame is often felt when you aren't good enough to achieve something. I think it's normal. Those who don't have that aren't great competitors. Losses can prove to lead to better things, mostly the case for upcoming players but even for established greats. But it might be the shame they felt from a certain loss or losses that does it.

I've always maintained that Roger's 2012 was kickstarted by the really bad losses at Wimbledon and USO that year. Those losses to Tsonga and Nole from 2 sets up ticked him off and that helped lead to a much better year in 2012. But those were certainly losses he should have been VERY ashamed of and the reaction to them makes me think he was.

The only match he should be ashamed of is the '08 RG final, because it's the one where it appeared he actually gave up well before it ended. Beyond that, I don't see where shame is relevant.

Anger -- now that's a different story. It's relevant (the Tsonga and Djokovic 2 sets up losses, for example), and could be used constructively to help kick start a better period.

 

[Fiero425]

I wouldn't say Roger's any less a player, but during his reign, he could have been more offensive out there and avoided some of those upsets; esp. when leading 2-0 or 2-1 in sets! Federer was fortunate Andy choked having him on the ropes in '09! So I give Sampras a little more credit for his 7 wins with the grass being more challenging to win on! It's a baseline haven now and not half as entertaining to watch! These long points with little net play is so boring! Borg and Connors were baseliners, but they knew they had to come into the net more than to shake hands and collect the check! :angel:

I also remember Roger beating Pete in 2001 playing offensive tennis. It is well known that the grass changed, and Roger won playing from the baseline, so he did not need to be offensive when he was winning from the base line. Roger's play changed with the change of the grass conditions. I think if he was forced to play offensive, he who would have. And you could make the same argument about Goran choking against Pete.

Unfortunately Goran choked against Agassi in '92 as well! At least he was able to come back as a "wildcard" and win Wimbledon in 2001! :clap :angel:

 

[DarthFed]

Shame is often felt when you aren't good enough to achieve something. I think it's normal. Those who don't have that aren't great competitors. Losses can prove to lead to better things, mostly the case for upcoming players but even for established greats. But it might be the shame they felt from a certain loss or losses that does it.

I've always maintained that Roger's 2012 was kickstarted by the really bad losses at Wimbledon and USO that year. Those losses to Tsonga and Nole from 2 sets up ticked him off and that helped lead to a much better year in 2012. But those were certainly losses he should have been VERY ashamed of and the reaction to them makes me think he was.

No, no, no. "Shame" is a emotion of guilt. There's no need for shame once you've done your best in competition. For example, Nadal lost the 2006 Wimbledon final - he wasn't good enough to win it, yet, but he did his best. It was progress from 2005, and progress towards 2007, from which he continually progressed until winning it.

At no stage would he have felt shame. Disappointment - yes. But that's a natural response to defeat. And he used that disappointment as a springboard to eventual success.

But he had no reason to feel shame...

Shame also means to feel embarrassed...