Biggest Grand Slam Upsets Of 2014

[tented]

From the ATP website:

Biggest Grand Slam Upsets Of 2014, aka, the List Which Includes Nadal/Kyrgios.

---

EDIT: I'll provide the list here, but you'll need to take the link to read the analysis.

1. Nick Kyrgios d. Rafael Nadal 7-6(5), 5-7, 7-6(5), 6-3, Wimbledon fourth round

2. Ernests Gulbis d. Roger Federer 6-7(5), 7-6(3), 6-2, 4-6, 6-3, Roland Garros fourth round

3. Andrey Kuznetsov d. David Ferrer 6-7(5), 6-0, 3-6, 6-3, 6-2, Wimbledon second round

4. Guillermo Garcia-Lopez d. Stan Wawrinka 6-4, 5-7, 6-2, 6-0, Roland Garros first round

5. Roberto Bautista Agut d. Juan Martin del Potro 4-6, 6-3, 5-7, 6-4, 7-5, Australian Open second round

 

[DarthFed]

And doesn't include what IMO was the biggest upset of the year, Stan over Nole. I know that Stan was way more established coming into AO, but he took on the 3 time defending champion who has owned that place whereas Kyrgios was just playing Rafa on grass.

I don't think Gulbis over Roger on clay should be there either. It was an upset for sure but definitely not #2 and probably not top 5. The rest of the list looks good.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The list also excludes both the semifinal upsets that happened in USO.

 

[tented]

The list also excludes both the semifinal upsets that happened in USO.

Yep, and they both deserve to be on the list.

I question most of their choices. Ferrer losing at Wimbledon. Really? Perhaps if it had been the second round of RG. I don't think Federer's loss at RG was a major upset, considering his recent history there. Rafa has lost early the last few years at Wimbledon, so that wasn't a shocker, either. Djokovic's losses at the AO and the USO were bigger upsets than any of these.

 

[mrzz]

Well, sorry for being blunt, but Nadal losing early at Wimbledon is not exactly a complete surprise. It is an upset, yes, but far from year #1. If this is true, his previous early losses were also the #1 upsets on the respective years, which should give him some kind of record (and that's one Federer does not have, El Dude).

I agree with GSM, both semis at USO should be on list. Given the match ups, and the order of events, I rate the Cilic win the bigger one. But in both cases one must admit that Cilic and Nishikori were playing good enough to people seriously consider the idea of them winning, and maybe it is precisely that which got them out of the list.

Honestly, not a single item on that list has shocked me THAT much at the time it happened.

 

[DarthFed]

Yeah I forgot about the USO semis and I do think that Nishi over Nole should be on the list. On top of being the heavy underdog straight up it was an even bigger upset due to the fact Nishikori had just come off 2 straight brutal 5 setters to reach the semis.

Federer losing to Cilic at USO was a huge upset on paper but when you look closer at the circumstances coming in, Cilic really in great form, and Roger coming in off of an emotionally draining and ugly 5 set comeback win vs. Monfils... I think it is quite a bit less than Nishikori beating Nole. It is known by now that Roger struggles to recover after long, grueling matches so I wasn't too surprised that Cilic beat him...what was shocking was how great Marin played that match and in the final. Roger and Kei had no chance.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I agree with Darth. Stan taking out Nole was huge.

 

[Riotbeard]

I think it's a testament to the year that even the big upsets were not that exciting. Had Kei finished off Nadal at Madrid that would have been pretty big I think. I agree about Stan even though he had come close at the previous two hard court slams against novak.

 

[TsarMatt]

Kyrgios is number one! Oh hell yeah!

I think it was a huge surprise because it was the 4th round. If he won in R1 or R2 against Nadal, then maybe it'd be a bit different, but Rafa was looking sharp and I remember heaps of people saying "if Nadal doesn't lose in week one, then he'll be very difficult to beat in week two". This is true especially because the courts slow down a bit. So, yeah, for Kyrgios to win is a huge surprise IMO.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

^ Nick failed to consolidate his win against Rafa in his next match at Wimbledon? that to me defines a player,Nick has a lot of work to do in his game.He has to work on his focus in matches,he tends to get distracted easily,he wants to be a 'showman' to the crowd? Pat Rafter and John Newcombe also commented on that fact just recently.Nick also has to work on his bhand,his return game and also his net play.

 

[isabelle]

GGL who beat Stan in RG was a big surprise especially because it was in 1st round. I heard that Stan cried in locker room just after the match, he was certainly disappointed just like we were all

 

[Kieran]

GGL who beat Stan in RG was a big surprise especially because it was in 1st round. I heard that Stan cried in locker room just after the match, he was certainly disappointed just like we were all

Oh we weren't all disappointed.

I agree with Nick being on the list because as TsarMatt points out, the expectations that Nadal would have a better shot at winning the title this year after he'd negotiated the first week, and Nick had lost the second set, looked second best on serve (in terms of holding) until the fourth set, and yet he played the big points with the grace and skill of a Sampras. Little wonder the pressure is on him now to deliver.

But he delivered on that day, and that he delivered so impressively was certainly a shock.

Stan at Oz, and the USO semis, should be there, too...

 

[TsarMatt]

^ Nick failed to consolidate his win against Rafa in his next match at Wimbledon? that to me defines a player,Nick has a lot of work to do in his game.He has to work on his focus in matches,he tends to get distracted easily,he wants to be a 'showman' to the crowd? Pat Rafter and John Newcombe also commented on that fact just recently.Nick also has to work on his bhand,his return game and also his net play.

Mate, give him a break. Yeah, he didn't consolidate, but he defeated Nadal and Gasquet in his first proper Wimbledon event. Yeah, I agree, a lot of work to do. A LOT. But hey, he's still young.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

^ Nick failed to consolidate his win against Rafa in his next match at Wimbledon? that to me defines a player,Nick has a lot of work to do in his game.He has to work on his focus in matches,he tends to get distracted easily,he wants to be a 'showman' to the crowd? Pat Rafter and John Newcombe also commented on that fact just recently.Nick also has to work on his bhand,his return game and also his net play.

Mate, give him a break. Yeah, he didn't consolidate, but he defeated Nadal and Gasquet in his first proper Wimbledon event. Yeah, I agree, a lot of work to do. A LOT. But hey, he's still young.

To me it was the media hype of Nick at Wimbledon,if you remember the same thing happened to Bernard Tomic when he made his breakthrough at Wimbledon.Media and fans tend to go overboard,I personally wait and see with younger players,lets keep things in perspective regarding Nick,he only won 10 matches on tour in 2014.Nick will be under a lot of pressure to perform well in 2015? btw there is another younger player I prefer than Nick,his name is Thanasi Kokkinakis,hopefully in time his game will mature,both players also tend to pick up niggling injuries,which is something of a concern.

 

[brokenshoelace]

For me, the biggest upset of the year is Wawrinka over Nadal. Someone above said Wawrinka over Novak but while that was big, I don't see how it's upset of the year big. Stan almost had him twice in their two slam meetings last year and most expected this to be competitive anyway.

By contrast, Stan had never taken a set off Nadal in 11 meetings, which is ludicrously bad. It was his first slam final against the best player on tour at that time who had a red hot 2013. Yeah, Nadal got injured but really, the first set alone was stunning enough. You could argue it's not the first time we see someone hit through Nadal like that but it sure as hell was the first time we see Wawrinka doing it. Plus, by the same token, it wasn't the first time Novak has an oddly substandard performance either.

Other than that, I'll take Nick over Nadal at Wimbledon and Nishikori over Djokovic in 2nd and 3rd place. Gulbis over Federer being the second biggest upset is silly.

 

[DarthFed]

^ Not a bad way to look at it. Stan upsetting Nole/Rafa in a final is a different story than upsetting them in a QF. That said Nole was seemingly invincible at AO and was coming off a red hot end to 2013 whereas Rafa is nowhere near as good as Novak at AO. But matchup wise and circumstances around it (first GS final instead of just another major QF) I see your point.

 

[TsarMatt]

For me, the biggest upset of the year is Wawrinka over Nadal. Someone above said Wawrinka over Novak but while that was big, I don't see how it's upset of the year big. Stan almost had him twice in their two slam meetings last year and most expected this to be competitive anyway.

By contrast, Stan had never taken a set off Nadal in 11 meetings, which is ludicrously bad. It was his first slam final against the best player on tour at that time who had a red hot 2013. Yeah, Nadal got injured but really, the first set alone was stunning enough. You could argue it's not the first time we see someone hit through Nadal like that but it sure as hell was the first time we see Wawrinka doing it. Plus, by the same token, it wasn't the first time Novak has an oddly substandard performance either.

Other than that, I'll take Nick over Nadal at Wimbledon and Nishikori over Djokovic in 2nd and 3rd place. Gulbis over Federer being the second biggest upset is silly.

I agree with you, but I feel Nadal's injury really hurt the 'impact' of the win. At one stage during the match Rafa was barely running out there, and it just felt underwhelming overall.

 

[Riotbeard]

For me, the biggest upset of the year is Wawrinka over Nadal. Someone above said Wawrinka over Novak but while that was big, I don't see how it's upset of the year big. Stan almost had him twice in their two slam meetings last year and most expected this to be competitive anyway.

By contrast, Stan had never taken a set off Nadal in 11 meetings, which is ludicrously bad. It was his first slam final against the best player on tour at that time who had a red hot 2013. Yeah, Nadal got injured but really, the first set alone was stunning enough. You could argue it's not the first time we see someone hit through Nadal like that but it sure as hell was the first time we see Wawrinka doing it. Plus, by the same token, it wasn't the first time Novak has an oddly substandard performance either.

Other than that, I'll take Nick over Nadal at Wimbledon and Nishikori over Djokovic in 2nd and 3rd place. Gulbis over Federer being the second biggest upset is silly.

I agree with you, but I feel Nadal's injury really hurt the 'impact' of the win. At one stage during the match Rafa was barely running out there, and it just felt underwhelming overall.

You hit the nail on the head matt. Nadal could barely serve after the first set. Given that, Novak was a MUCH bigger upset.

 

[tented]

I agree with you, but I feel Nadal's injury really hurt the 'impact' of the win. At one stage during the match Rafa was barely running out there, and it just felt underwhelming overall.

You hit the nail on the head matt. Nadal could barely serve after the first set. Given that, Novak was a MUCH bigger upset.

If Rafa had not been injured, then it would have been the upset of the year given their head-to-head, and the fact that Stan had never won a single set. But that's not what happened.

Yes, Wawrinka played a tremendous first set, but we'll never know what would have happened next had Nadal's back not been injured. But we do know Stan has had trouble closing out matches (look what just happened in London), and he can get nervous and distracted (look what just happened in London).

We also certainly know Rafa has a history of turning things around, and coming back from what has sometimes looked like hopeless situations. We also know he has come back to win lots of GS matches after dropping the first set, including a few finals.

So, yeah, a fit Rafa losing to Stan in a GS final = upset of the year. A hobbled Rafa losing to Stan? :nono

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced the upset of the year was Nishikori beating Djokovic in New York. I was surprised Kei even made it that far, given the long, grueling matches which led up to the SF. The R16 against Raonic went five sets, and lasted four hours, and 19 minutes. The QF against Wawrinka also went five sets, and lasted four hours, 15 minutes. And then he had to face Novak, one of the most fit (if not the most fit) players on the tour.

It was somewhat surprising, but more disappointing, that Cilic beat Roger, but not as surprising as the other SF, especially with Roger coming off the Monfils marathon. A few years ago, a younger Roger almost certainly would have beaten Cilic, but this is 2014.

 

[Riotbeard]

I agree with you, but I feel Nadal's injury really hurt the 'impact' of the win. At one stage during the match Rafa was barely running out there, and it just felt underwhelming overall.

You hit the nail on the head matt. Nadal could barely serve after the first set. Given that, Novak was a MUCH bigger upset.

If Rafa had not been injured, then it would have been the upset of the year given their head-to-head, and the fact that Stan had never won a single set. But that's not what happened.

Yes, Wawrinka played a tremendous first set, but we'll never know what would have happened next had Nadal's back not been injured. But we do know Stan has had trouble closing out matches (look what just happened in London), and he can get nervous and distracted (look what just happened in London).

We also certainly know Rafa has a history of turning things around, and coming back from what has sometimes looked like hopeless situations. We also know he has come back to win lots of GS matches after dropping the first set, including a few finals.

So, yeah, a fit Rafa losing to Stan in a GS final = upset of the year. A hobbled Rafa losing to Stan? :nono

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced the upset of the year was Nishikori beating Djokovic in New York. I was surprised Kei even made it that far, given the long, grueling matches which led up to the SF. The R16 against Raonic went five sets, and lasted four hours, and 19 minutes. The QF against Wawrinka also went five sets, and lasted four hours, 15 minutes. And then he had to face Novak, one of the most fit (if not the most fit) players on the tour.

It was somewhat surprising, but more disappointing, that Cilic beat Roger, but not as surprising as the other SF, especially with Roger coming off the Monfils marathon. A few years ago, a younger Roger almost certainly would have beaten Cilic, but this is 2014.

That one is definitely up there.

I think in hindsight Stan's win is maybe a bit bigger, because he went on to win (as a new slam winner), and Novak was certainly the biggest roadblock stan faced (which could only be known around set 2 of the final). Like Stan, Kei had made significant jumps throughout the year, so while it was an upset, Kei had been knocking on the door for some time as well. It was impressive that he did three 5-setters in a row. I find those to be bigger than Kyrios over Nadal (which deserves to be on the list), because Kyrios did not back it up (he is young so no biggie, but it does affect the magnitude), and rafa has not played great on grass since 2011.