Best Moments of the Year

[Murat Baslamisli]

Djokovic winning the Australian Open!
Djokovic winning the WTF!
Del Potro beating Rafa at Shanghai!

:clap :clap :clap

Add Djokovic winning Monte Carlo beating Rafa Nadal in the final
Darcis beating Rafa at Wimbledon in the 1st round
Zeballos beating Nadal in Chile, VTR final (I can watch that last game over and over)

:lolz: :lolz: :laydownlaughing :laydownlaughing

There is a pattern there but for the life of me I cannot figure it out...:blush:


:lolz:
You can add to that the time when Rafa ate some bad burritos and had terrible diarrhea...

 

[DarthFed]

Djokovic winning the Australian Open!
Djokovic winning the WTF!
Del Potro beating Rafa at Shanghai!

:clap :clap :clap

Add Djokovic winning Monte Carlo beating Rafa Nadal in the final
Darcis beating Rafa at Wimbledon in the 1st round
Zeballos beating Nadal in Chile, VTR final (I can watch that last game over and over)

:lolz: :lolz: :laydownlaughing :laydownlaughing

There is a pattern there but for the life of me I cannot figure it out...:blush:


:lolz:
You can add to that the time when Rafa ate some bad burritos and had terrible diarrhea...

The 8th best moment is going to be when Rafa lost a point to his hitting partner this year.

 

[Moxie]

Djokovic winning the Australian Open!
Djokovic winning the WTF!
Del Potro beating Rafa at Shanghai!

:clap :clap :clap

Add Djokovic winning Monte Carlo beating Rafa Nadal in the final
Darcis beating Rafa at Wimbledon in the 1st round
Zeballos beating Nadal in Chile, VTR final (I can watch that last game over and over)

:lolz: :lolz: :laydownlaughing :laydownlaughing

There is a pattern there but for the life of me I cannot figure it out...:blush:


:lolz:
You can add to that the time when Rafa ate some bad burritos and had terrible diarrhea...

The 8th best moment is going to be when Rafa lost a point to his hitting partner this year.

Couldn't be bitterness and envy…must be that we have more Darcis and Zeballos fans than we thought.
:laydownlaughing

 

[Fiero425]

Djokovic winning the Australian Open!
Djokovic winning the WTF!
Del Potro beating Rafa at Shanghai!

:clap :clap :clap

Add Djokovic winning Monte Carlo beating Rafa Nadal in the final
Darcis beating Rafa at Wimbledon in the 1st round
Zeballos beating Nadal in Chile, VTR final (I can watch that last game over and over)

:lolz: :lolz: :laydownlaughing :laydownlaughing

There is a pattern there but for the life of me I cannot figure it out...:blush:


:lolz:
You can add to that the time when Rafa ate some bad burritos and had terrible diarrhea...

The 8th best moment is going to be when Rafa lost a point to his hitting partner this year.

Couldn't be bitterness and envy…must be that we have more Darcis and Zeballos fans than we thought.
:laydownlaughing

I revel in any upsets; happens so infrequently! It gave character to tournaments in my day if a top seed was ousted in an early round! I wrote about it already about how monotonous and boring the tour has been with the top 4 dominating so much; same faces even show up in the semis, not just the finals of majors! Nadal going out early the last couple years at Wimbledon opened up his section of the draw; as much a benefit losing a 5th seed this last time anyway! I remember 1990 French Open, both Edberg and Becker, #1 and 2 respectively went out on "bloody monday!" We still had a great tournament with Agassi losing to an old vet, Andres Gomez in the final! It was a nice good-bye present to the guy at 30+ y.o.! Back in that era, it was Navratilova and Evert every week contesting all majors! There was complaining then, so forgive me if I love seeing Nadal go down in flames periodically!

 

[Moxie]

^ If you're so fond of an upset, I'm surprised you forgot to mention Stakovsky d. Federer (Wimbledon,) or Dimitrov d. Djokovic (Madrid.)

 

[Fiero425]

^ If you're so fond of an upset, I'm surprised you forgot to mention Stakovsky d. Federer (Wimbledon,) or Dimitrov d. Djokovic (Madrid.)

Fed was due for a bad loss! He's been more than lucky to avoid an upset earlier; esp. at FO! Sorry, but I can't call any matches lost by Roger as an upset these days! He's been on borrowed time since winning Wimbledon last season! It's all gravy now so I won't "boo-hoo" :cry :cry if he loses in an early round these days! It would bother me more if it happened to Nole or Del Po; the next generation! :clap :clap

 

[Moxie]

^ If you're so fond of an upset, I'm surprised you forgot to mention Stakovsky d. Federer (Wimbledon,) or Dimitrov d. Djokovic (Madrid.)

Fed was due for a bad loss! He's been more than lucky to avoid an upset earlier; esp. at FO! Sorry, but I can't call any matches lost by Roger as an upset these days! He's been on borrowed time since winning Wimbledon last season! It's all gravy now so I won't "boo-hoo" :cry :cry if he loses in an early round these days! It would bother me more if it happened to Nole or Del Po; the next generation! :clap :clap

Stakhovsky isn't the next generation…he's 27. But what about that upset by Dimitrov, who is? That seems to fit your definition of 'best moments of the year.'

 

[DarthFed]

^ If you're so fond of an upset, I'm surprised you forgot to mention Stakovsky d. Federer (Wimbledon,) or Dimitrov d. Djokovic (Madrid.)

Fed was due for a bad loss! He's been more than lucky to avoid an upset earlier; esp. at FO! Sorry, but I can't call any matches lost by Roger as an upset these days! He's been on borrowed time since winning Wimbledon last season! It's all gravy now so I won't "boo-hoo" :cry :cry if he loses in an early round these days! It would bother me more if it happened to Nole or Del Po; the next generation! :clap :clap

No one is due a bad loss. The reason Roger used to never lose before the semis wasn't luck, it's that the occasional C or D game was still going to get it done. And Roger was "off" plenty of times.

The difference now is that he is way worse to the point where he can often lose early, QF's and before. Roger can't get away with the C game, probably can't get away with the B game even.

 

[Kieran]

No one is due a bad loss. The reason Roger used to never lose before the semis wasn't luck, it's that the occasional C or D game was still going to get it done.

It's a terrible indictment on the rest of them that Roger's D game would be enough to get him through to the semis of a slam, isn't it? :nono

 

[DarthFed]

No one is due a bad loss. The reason Roger used to never lose before the semis wasn't luck, it's that the occasional C or D game was still going to get it done.

It's a terrible indictment on the rest of them that Roger's D game would be enough to get him through to the semis of a slam, isn't it? :nono

It's called being well above the pack. You think Nadal has always played at or near his best at RG early rounds?

 

[Kieran]

No one is due a bad loss. The reason Roger used to never lose before the semis wasn't luck, it's that the occasional C or D game was still going to get it done.

It's a terrible indictment on the rest of them that Roger's D game would be enough to get him through to the semis of a slam, isn't it? :nono

It's called being well above the pack. You think Nadal has always played at or near his best at RG early rounds?

Early rounds is one thing - but enough to get to the semis of slams? :nono

It's a criticism of the rest, which I think is fair enough, by the way...

 

[Front242]

Well it's basically been the 128 player draw at slams versus 4 guys who had a shot at winning any of them (5 if we count Del Potro but he hasn't made a slam final since 2009 so I won't) so it's only fair to be super critical of the rest of them.

 

[Fiero425]

Well it's basically been the 128 player draw at slams versus 4 guys who had a shot at winning any of them (5 if we count Del Potro but he hasn't made a slam final since 2009 so I won't) so it's only fair to be super critical of the rest of them.

That's all I've been saying for the most part! It's not that the top 4 are that great, but the rest of the field is so bad; at least mentally! No lead is safe; look at Wimbledon with Verdasco! He was up 2 sets to none, in complete charge of Murray in the semi and systematically gave it all back and the match! IT was pathetic, sad, and gutless as far as I'm concerned! Haas was leading Roger 2 sets to none at FO a couple years ago and couldn't finish! It happens again and again; has nothing to do with the greatness of the top players! It's more about the mental side with the rest of them! :nono :huh: :cry :s

 

[DarthFed]

No one is due a bad loss. The reason Roger used to never lose before the semis wasn't luck, it's that the occasional C or D game was still going to get it done.

It's a terrible indictment on the rest of them that Roger's D game would be enough to get him through to the semis of a slam, isn't it? :nono

It's called being well above the pack. You think Nadal has always played at or near his best at RG early rounds?

Early rounds is one thing - but enough to get to the semis of slams? :nono

It's a criticism of the rest, which I think is fair enough, by the way...

Early rounds is certainly 1-4 at least. You already know I'd throw the QF's in there too as far as a top dog losing "early"

 

[brokenshoelace]

Well it's basically been the 128 player draw at slams versus 4 guys who had a shot at winning any of them (5 if we count Del Potro but he hasn't made a slam final since 2009 so I won't) so it's only fair to be super critical of the rest of them.

That's all I've been saying for the most part! It's not that the top 4 are that great

Actually they really are. That doesn't negate the fact that the rest of the tour for the past 2 years hasn't been stellar (it was much better in 2008-2009 for example), but to say "it's not that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are that great" is ludicrous.

 

[Kieran]

The rest of them over the last ten years haven't been stellar, which has helped the ones who win everything look like they're unprecedented superhumans...

 

[brokenshoelace]

The rest of them over the last ten years haven't been stellar, which has helped the ones who win everything look like they're unprecedented superhumans...

How many have to be "stellar"? Like, let's look at any era, is there a single era that had "stellar" players beyond the top 5? Because I'd like to revisit it... (unless the word stellar, like the word "great," lost a lot of its meaning).

Over the last ten years, the rest of the tour has been extremely good. I'm sorry, but the top 10 between 2003 and 2009 was phenomenal. It's really been on a decline since mid/late 2010.

 

[Kieran]

They just never win anything, eh? And they rarely get close to winning anything.

And I didn't mention the word "stellar" first, it was in the post above mine. I think the last ten years we've certainly seen great players but we've also seen the least destructive, least ambitious, also rans propping them up, too. I dunno whether it's cos they're paid too much or they're star-struck, but they'd wanna struck them stars a bit harder if they're gonna make a credible challenge for the grub...

 

[DarthFed]

A lot it is being overstated and then a good chunk of it is homogenization of surfaces and playing styles. With Wimbledon greatly slowed down you don't see as many major upsets, surprise finalists or winners there now. AO and USO are also playing much more alike. The one that is still vastly different from the rest is RG and the story there is the same as it would have been in any era...Nadal wins it pretty much every time.

You look at the 90's for example and you have 1 surprise Wimbledon winner in 10 years, a whole host of clay courters who couldn't separate themselves, a lot of AO winners where Sampras was not nearly as strong, and then next to no surprises at USO. So it all gets a little overblown. As stated many times Sampras was garbage on clay and very good but not amazing at AO. That accounts for a lot of the perceived difference between how much harder he had it from the "also rans" of the 90's.