Great matches this Wimbledon...

[tented]

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.

I agree with Stakhovsky, but Darcis? Not a chance. If schadenfreude is your thing, then at least pick the Rosol match.

 

[Denis]

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.

I agree with Stakhovsky, but Darcis? Not a chance. If schadenfreude is your thing, then at least pick the Rosol match.

Nice selective quotation. I said that 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.

The Darcis match definitely qualifies. It was of more than ordinary importance (first ever 1R loss), a degree of fame and distinction (Darcis played a terrific match against a two time champ), distinguished itself from other matches year-round (a straight set victory over Rafa in the first round of a GS, if that is not distinguishable, what is?).

---

But good to know that you think that Nadal losing in the first round of Wimbledon is ordinary. You have a lot of faith in your guy.

 

[Kieran]

There's a difference between a huge upset that reverberates forever in the sport and a "great match." Everyone still remembers Becker being upset in 1987, fewer remember who beat him, even fewer recall the match itself or the score...

 

[tented]

But good to know that you think that Nadal losing in the first round of Wimbledon is ordinary. You have a lot of faith in your guy.

There's a difference between a huge upset that reverberates forever in the sport and a "great match." Everyone still remembers Becker being upset in 1987, fewer remember who beat him, even fewer recall the match itself or the score...

Exactly. Perfectly put, Kieran.

 

[Denis]

But good to know that you think that Nadal losing in the first round of Wimbledon is ordinary. You have a lot of faith in your guy.

There's a difference between a huge upset that reverberates forever in the sport and a "great match." Everyone still remembers Becker being upset in 1987, fewer remember who beat him, even fewer recall the match itself or the score...

Exactly. Perfectly put, Kieran.

What a bunch of nonsense. Again your standards are twisted and you do not use the word 'great' as is common in the English language. Go look it up in the dictionary. This is an attempt to talk down this Wimbledon. You shoud use other words like 'exceptional' or even 'exiting' (which is much more subjective) if you want to talk about matches the way you do.

But you are not addressing that of course, just using a random example of a match that happened before most people on this planet were capable of remembering such a match (median average world population is 24 years).

I don't recall Becker being upset. I only recall him whining about people not being able to serve and volley on the BBC.

 

[tented]

But good to know that you think that Nadal losing in the first round of Wimbledon is ordinary. You have a lot of faith in your guy.

There's a difference between a huge upset that reverberates forever in the sport and a "great match." Everyone still remembers Becker being upset in 1987, fewer remember who beat him, even fewer recall the match itself or the score...

Exactly. Perfectly put, Kieran.

What a bunch of nonsense. Again your standards are twisted and you do not use the word 'great' as is common in the English language. Go look it up in the dictionary.

Funny you should mention that ...

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=443&pid=13065#pid13065

 

[Kieran]

I think Rosol's name will be remembered longer than Mr. Darcis. He was the first to do it. Darcis might signal the beginning of a trend, little more.

If it is a trend then it would be a welcome one, and one which Stakhovsky continued. Capitulations like Berdych in the quarters are a dereliction of duty and an example of what's been typical in the sport for the last decade...

---

What a bunch of nonsense. Again your standards are twisted and you do not use the word 'great' as is common in the English language. Go look it up in the dictionary. This is an attempt to talk down this Wimbledon. You shoud use other words like 'exceptional' or even 'exiting' (which is much more subjective) if you want to talk about matches the way you do.

But you are not addressing that of course, just using a random example of a match that happened before most people on this planet were capable of remembering such a match (median average world population is 24 years).

I don't recall Becker being upset. I only recall him whining about people not being able to serve and volley on the BBC.

In fairness, Denisovich, I don't think you're paying attention here. Somehow, you think my view that W lacks "great matches" (not to be confused with "great upsets" or "great performances") is somehow an insult to Novek, which is not only bizarre, but it's fanboy extremism...

 

[Denis]

Aha, so an upset is not a tennismatch. What is it then? A horserace?

 

[Kieran]

Aha, so an upset is not a tennismatch. What is it then? A horserace?

Great logic there. All tennis matches are great tennis matches.

Relax yourself, Novak wasn't insulted, so all is well in your world...

 

[Denis]

Well you started this thread, and it came accross as absurd to me since in my view there had been many great matches this tourny.

 

[Kieran]

Well you started this thread, and it came accross as absurd to me since in my view there had been many great matches this tourny.

I think that in your view, somehow I slighted Novak, which was strange.

I haven't seen any great matches in this tournament. Please understand the distinction between "great match", and "great performance" or "great upset..."

 

[Denis]

I think 'great performance' and 'great upset' can be subsets of 'great match'. A 'great performance' therefore can constitute, in my view, a 'great match'.

 

[Kieran]

Okay, you're trying to fine tune it because you begin to see my point. Let's break it down like this: a great performance is an effort by one player and the match is illuminated by this, but a great match needs both to hit the heights, tension to be present and a chap to have to dig deep and go extraordinary lengths to win it.

And none of this is a slight on Novak, for the record... :snigger

 

[Denis]

I think it is more a question of standards. Your standards seem to be so high that you only see a 'great match' well I don't know. Have you ever seen any then?

My standards are lower in that respect. I don't need a 2008 Wimbledon final to have seen a great match.

 

[Kieran]

I wonder if we're witnessing our first "great" match on centre right now...

 

[Denis]

It looks like a good one, potentially great, but Novak is making a lot of errors, which, to me subjectively, makes it not great so far.

 

[tented]

It looks like a good one, potentially great, but Novak is making a lot of errors, which, to me subjectively, makes it not great so far.

This, and Murray/Verdasco, are the best matches I've seen this tournament. (But I certainly haven't seen them all.)

 

[Ricardo]

Okay, you're trying to fine tune it because you begin to see my point. Let's break it down like this: a great performance is an effort by one player and the match is illuminated by this, but a great match needs both to hit the heights, tension to be present and a chap to have to dig deep and go extraordinary lengths to win it.

And none of this is a slight on Novak, for the record... :snigger

I think you are a bit off here. If a great match needs both to hit the heights then even Wimbledon 2008 wouldn't make it, because first two sets Fed was well below his best and the next two Rafa got tight and wasn't quite there. Sure last set was good but by your definition it wasn't enough. Yet it surpassed a 'great match' and would count as a all-time 'classic' - and very few matches are that.

Don't be a spoilt brat, your standard is uncommonly high... do you think we really over-use the term 'great match'? it's not too much to say there are a dozen of those in a year, out of over 1000 matches a year (ATP level). Gee, why would you even bother watching if you can't get some 20 great matches a year? I've heard commentators calling countless matches as 'great match' and i don't think they were being too generous. But they also certainly don't fit your 'definition' - which takes 'great match' to or above 'all time classic'.

 

[Kieran]

The word "great" is commonly abused, buddy, not least of all by commentators who are trying to sell you something...

 

[Ricardo]

I wonder if we're witnessing our first "great" match on centre right now...

It's a great match for most fans, but for you it's so far off that it's not even close. Djoker's bh is uncharacteristically error-prone and Delpo didn't serve well in set 1; neither player is at the height of his powers.

Anyway i wonder if this match will soften up Djoker even if he wins, like it did to Federer at the Olympics - Murray, assuming he wins would look really good.