Great matches this Wimbledon...

[Kieran]

Have there been any?

I know there have been great performances and upsets, but actually memorably great matches? I think there's none so far. It seems a poor return, to me...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Probably depends on who you ask....Stak would say the match against Roger was the best match he has ever been a part of. Ditto for Darcis. Overall though, you might be right. Maybe the semis will produce the greatness you think is lacking.

 

[El Dude]

Looking back a bit, I don't know if there were any great matches as a whole but there were some very good and/or matches that had great stretches. Most of the Tomic matches were very good, especially the Gasquet one. Also, Zemlja vs. Dimitrov was very good, and Ferrer vs. Dolgopolov was a lot of fun to watch until Dolgo lost it.

But probably no truly epic matches.

 

[Denis]

Great matches as defined in matches won by Rafa??
:s

In no particular order:
1. Darcis beating Nadal
2. Starkhovsky beating Federer
3. Djokovic clinical performance against Chardy.
4. Del Potro - Ferrer
5. Tomic - Gasquet
6. Ferrer - Dolgopolov
7 Brown - Hewitt
8 Hewitt - Wawrinka
9 Janowicz - Melzer
10 Youzny Poposil

come to mind.

---

Ah yes, El Dude is right Dimitrov Zemja was a good one too.

 

[Front242]

Seems Verdasco/Murray today was a good one and I missed it :/

 

[Kieran]

Hey Denisovich,

There were certainly great performances in those matches, that's true, but none of them were great matches. Cetainly not the ones I've seen from your list. But what's interesting about this W is that there's a slight encroachment of the next era into the old era, with Fedal as the main victims. That's what this reminds me of, Wimbledons like 2001 and 2002, say, where suddenly newer players were making a name and the old guard were catching short shrift.

It doesn't make for great matches but it makes for interesting tennis. We can clearly see some development among the next batch, though how important or enduring that is, only time will tell. I've not seen the Next Great Thing yet, I believe.

But great matches? Hopefully the semis or final will give us one. And it has nothing to do with Nadal. Why don't people put their partisanship aside when a non-partisan question is asked?

---

Seems Verdasco/Murray today was a good one and I missed it :/

It was good, but as Johnny Giles would say, "it wasn't great..."

 

[Moxie]

Hey Denisovich,

There were certainly great performances in those matches, that's true, but none of them were great matches. Cetainly not the ones I've seen from your list. But what's interesting about this W is that there's a slight encroachment of the next era into the old era, with Fedal as the main victims. That's what this reminds me of, Wimbledons like 2001 and 2002, say, where suddenly newer players were making a name and the old guard were catching short shrift.

It doesn't make for great matches but it makes for interesting tennis. We can clearly see some development among the next batch, though how important or enduring that is, only time will tell. I've not seen the Next Great Thing yet, I believe.

But great matches? Hopefully the semis or final will give us one. And it has nothing to do with Nadal. Why don't people put their partisanship aside when a non-partisan question is asked?

---

Seems Verdasco/Murray today was a good one and I missed it :/

It was good, but as Johnny Giles would say, "it wasn't great..."

---

Hiya, Kieran! I agree there's a lot of partisanship in that list. However, I would give up a lot of love to the Murray/Verdasco match today. Verdasco played one of the bravest, go-for it matches I've ever seen him play, and Murray, while he may have been feeling the general pressure a bit, at the beginning he was mostly under the pressure of Verdasco. But he stepped up to the plate. And late in the 5th, with the crowd inside and outside of the court going crazy, he broke, and, more importantly, held to win. I thought it was pretty thrilling. It wouldn't make my all-time top-10, but it beats every other match I've seen in the last week +, for drama.

 

[Riotbeard]

Hey Denisovich,

There were certainly great performances in those matches, that's true, but none of them were great matches. Cetainly not the ones I've seen from your list. But what's interesting about this W is that there's a slight encroachment of the next era into the old era, with Fedal as the main victims. That's what this reminds me of, Wimbledons like 2001 and 2002, say, where suddenly newer players were making a name and the old guard were catching short shrift.

It doesn't make for great matches but it makes for interesting tennis. We can clearly see some development among the next batch, though how important or enduring that is, only time will tell. I've not seen the Next Great Thing yet, I believe.

But great matches? Hopefully the semis or final will give us one. And it has nothing to do with Nadal. Why don't people put their partisanship aside when a non-partisan question is asked?

---

Seems Verdasco/Murray today was a good one and I missed it :/

It was good, but as Johnny Giles would say, "it wasn't great..."

---

Agree with this. As good as some of the matches denisovich lists (I loved some them), none that I saw were great, because they were not two great players playing their best and the best winning. Djokovic gave an all time great performance against chardy, but it was so lopsided I can't say it was great.

I will say, I have LOVED this W. more than any other grand slam in a while. Jerzy, Delpo, and novak in the semis, what's not to love?

 

[Denis]

Hey Denisovich,

There were certainly great performances in those matches, that's true, but none of them were great matches. Cetainly not the ones I've seen from your list. But what's interesting about this W is that there's a slight encroachment of the next era into the old era, with Fedal as the main victims. That's what this reminds me of, Wimbledons like 2001 and 2002, say, where suddenly newer players were making a name and the old guard were catching short shrift.

It doesn't make for great matches but it makes for interesting tennis. We can clearly see some development among the next batch, though how important or enduring that is, only time will tell. I've not seen the Next Great Thing yet, I believe.

But great matches? Hopefully the semis or final will give us one. And it has nothing to do with Nadal. Why don't people put their partisanship aside when a non-partisan question is asked?

---

Seems Verdasco/Murray today was a good one and I missed it :/

It was good, but as Johnny Giles would say, "it wasn't great..."

---

Hiya, Kieran! I agree there's a lot of partisanship in that list.

---

Pot, kettle really. Question to you two unbiased tennis followers: what was a 'great' match at Wimbledon 2010? :nono

 

[tented]

Hey Denisovich,

There were certainly great performances in those matches, that's true, but none of them were great matches. Cetainly not the ones I've seen from your list. But what's interesting about this W is that there's a slight encroachment of the next era into the old era, with Fedal as the main victims. That's what this reminds me of, Wimbledons like 2001 and 2002, say, where suddenly newer players were making a name and the old guard were catching short shrift.

It doesn't make for great matches but it makes for interesting tennis. We can clearly see some development among the next batch, though how important or enduring that is, only time will tell. I've not seen the Next Great Thing yet, I believe.

But great matches? Hopefully the semis or final will give us one. And it has nothing to do with Nadal. Why don't people put their partisanship aside when a non-partisan question is asked?

---

Seems Verdasco/Murray today was a good one and I missed it :/

It was good, but as Johnny Giles would say, "it wasn't great..."

---

Hiya, Kieran! I agree there's a lot of partisanship in that list.

---

Pot, kettle really. Question to you two unbiased tennis followers: what was a 'great' match at Wimbledon 2010? :nono

---

I'll step in ...

There were no great matches at Wimbledon 2010.

And I'm stating this as a huge Rafa fan -- and he won.

So, sure, I can put partisanship aside, and still look objectively at that year, and state that no great matches took place. Not even the final. Actually, certainly not the final.

 

[Kieran]

Pot, kettle really. Question to you two unbiased tennis followers: what was a 'great' match at Wimbledon 2010? :nono

What?! How is it pot, kettle? I never mentioned Nadal or 2010! I don't remember 2010 having any great matches, but what has that got to do with anything?

Why did you think my question was an attack on Novak?

 

[Ricardo]

come on, the Murray Verdasco match was a great one; just how high is your standard? if it's so hard, what matches over the past 20 years can you think of that qualify for 'great'? 'great match' doesn't need to be one of the best ever matches, IMO.

 

[Kieran]

Good post, Ricardo, but I'm thinking last nights match was a good one but will it linger long in the memory? I don't think so. It wasn't a great match, in the cold light of day. This W will be remembered more got the upsets. I'm hoping the semis and final will ignite a barnstormer but the news about JMDP doesn't sound good...

 

[tented]

Good post, Ricardo, but I'm thinking last nights match was a good one but will it linger long in the memory? I don't think so. It wasn't a great match, in the cold light of day.

I agree. It was engaging at the time, and well worth watching, but I will probably rarely (if ever) think about it again once the tournament's over.

This W will be remembered more got the upsets.

Without question, this is true. No matter what happens next, the story will always be about this having been the year Roger lost for the first time in 10 (?) years before a QF, Rafa lost in the first round, a record number of retirements/withdrawals/walkovers, Serena's shock loss, Azarenka withdrawing after one match, etc. The only thing which might alter this trajectory would be for Murray to win, and finally have another Brit win Wimbledon for the first time since the introduction of penicillin.

 

[Denis]

Good post, Ricardo, but I'm thinking last nights match was a good one but will it linger long in the memory? I don't think so. It wasn't a great match, in the cold light of day. This W will be remembered more got the upsets. I'm hoping the semis and final will ignite a barnstormer but the news about JMDP doesn't sound good...

I'd like to repeat ricardo's questions: what then qualifies for a 'great' match? What are your standards? which matches do you have in mind? Or is that one you are thinking about the standard?

Personally, I think this is one of the best Wimbledon tourneys in years, because of the matches listed above. They were maybe not exceptional, as in it happens only once every decade, but they were great.

 

[Kieran]

Well, great matches are by definition exceptions. They become great by dint of their level, their unpredictability of the outcome, and the fact that both players hit their peak at the same time and sustain it, particularly at the end. I've seen matches that begin routinely and then ignite. The innocuous foreplay is seen as a necessary component for the humongous climax. I think the Murray-Verdasco match was a very good match, and this was because Murray reverted to his default setting passivity. This would be something I'd worry about if I was a fan. He expunged that temporarily last year, but he was back to his old self at Oz and he looks like he's waiting for the other guy to miss here too.

I think it's an interesting Wimbledon, but not yet a great one. But Nole has been playing great and looks assured and it would take another player to stand up to him to give us a great match, I think, or JJ pressing Murray severely in the semis. Great matches are few and far between and there hasn't been one to light up this tournament yet...

 

[Ricardo]

Alright it may just be my opinion, obviously i measure things differently to you. Great matches to me, are ones that are engaging but doesn't necessarily have to be so incredible that it stays in my memory for years to come. The kind of matches like Rafa Fed 2008 or Borg Mac 1980 are more than great, those are all time great matches. Great matches (but not all timers) are like great players, they are very very good - Becker, Edberg, Rafter, Agassi, Wilander etc, they are all great but not enough to qualify as 'some of the best ever' status. Sure we are yet to see matches that will be considered as all time great matches, but i think you give too little credit calling it 'not great'.

 

[Riotbeard]

Well, great matches are by definition exceptions. They become great by dint of their level, their unpredictability of the outcome, and the fact that both players hit their peak at the same time and sustain it, particularly at the end. I've seen matches that begin routinely and then ignite. The innocuous foreplay is seen as a necessary component for the humongous climax. I think the Murray-Verdasco match was a very good match, and this was because Murray reverted to his default setting passivity. This would be something I'd worry about if I was a fan. He expunged that temporarily last year, but he was back to his old self at Oz and he looks like he's waiting for the other guy to miss here too.

I think it's an interesting Wimbledon, but not yet a great one. But Nole has been playing great and looks assured and it would take another player to stand up to him to give us a great match, I think, or JJ pressing Murray severely in the semis. Great matches are few and far between and there hasn't been one to light up this tournament yet...

I agree with this definition of great matches. For me and the players I like, this has been a great wimbledon, but I don't think we have seen 2 great players playing their absolute best against each other yet...

 

[Andrew William]

I suppose it depends on how you define a great match. If it's two players playing unbelievable tennis for virtually the duration of the match then I would have to say no, this Wimbledon has not had any of those. However, if you like suspense and surprise outcomes, this Wimbledon has been fantastic in that regard. I'm hoping Murray and Djokovic produce one of those 'great' matches in the final and everyone goes to bed drunk and happy.

---

Oh and Murray wins it all of course!

 

[Denis]

Well, great matches are by definition exceptions. They become great by dint of their level, their unpredictability of the outcome, and the fact that both players hit their peak at the same time and sustain it, particularly at the end. I've seen matches that begin routinely and then ignite. The innocuous foreplay is seen as a necessary component for the humongous climax. I think the Murray-Verdasco match was a very good match, and this was because Murray reverted to his default setting passivity. This would be something I'd worry about if I was a fan. He expunged that temporarily last year, but he was back to his old self at Oz and he looks like he's waiting for the other guy to miss here too.

I think it's an interesting Wimbledon, but not yet a great one. But Nole has been playing great and looks assured and it would take another player to stand up to him to give us a great match, I think, or JJ pressing Murray severely in the semis. Great matches are few and far between and there hasn't been one to light up this tournament yet...

Very high standard, and doesn't do justice to the fact that this is Wimbledon, nor to the dictionary definition of 'great'. I think a tennis tournament and matches in general are 'great' if they are of more than ordinary importance, carry weight, a degree of fame or distinction; and distinguish themselves from other matches year-round.

Compared to what we have had this whole year, a lot of the matches I listed qualify. And they will be brought up in the future. Especially the Starkhovsky match, and the Darcis match. Don't worry I'll remind you of that one.

It's a relative standard of course. You can assess this tournament and compare it to the last 60 years, but I think this one then still is 'more than ordinary', considering the upsets.