Underrated Matches?

[calitennis127]

Not in the same match, which happens to last over a 5 hours, no. That's the main difference. See the FO final for reference.

After losing the first set to Novak, Nadal was a backboard the rest of the match and Djokovic did not pick up his level. Nadal's movement in the French Open final was youthful - anything but old.

Press Ctrl+F then type "old." It will lead you to your post. At no point did I claim his movement looks old. He still moves great. And no, Nadal didn't win the FO by becoming a backboard. He became more aggressive and was helped by Novak's level dropping then ranging form mediocre to occasionally good throughout the match.

Of course Nadal can still be a backboard, but the type of 5 hour long defensive marathons he put on against Verdasco are a thing of the past. He's no longer as physical, and not quite as quick (he was pretty tired in the FO final and that's not disputable).

I don't disagree that Nadal went for his shots in sets through 2 for 4. He certainly did. But in terms of court coverage, he was everywhere and anywhere he needed to be.

I think you are speaking too soon about these 5-set marathons. I think Nadal would be just fine participating in a few of those in 2015.

 

[brokenshoelace]

After losing the first set to Novak, Nadal was a backboard the rest of the match and Djokovic did not pick up his level. Nadal's movement in the French Open final was youthful - anything but old.

Press Ctrl+F then type "old." It will lead you to your post. At no point did I claim his movement looks old. He still moves great. And no, Nadal didn't win the FO by becoming a backboard. He became more aggressive and was helped by Novak's level dropping then ranging form mediocre to occasionally good throughout the match.

Of course Nadal can still be a backboard, but the type of 5 hour long defensive marathons he put on against Verdasco are a thing of the past. He's no longer as physical, and not quite as quick (he was pretty tired in the FO final and that's not disputable).

I don't disagree that Nadal went for his shots in sets through 2 for 4. He certainly did. But in terms of court coverage, he was everywhere and anywhere he needed to be.

I think you are speaking too soon about these 5-set marathons. I think Nadal would be just fine participating in a few of those in 2015.

I sure hope you're right.

 

[calitennis127]

Press Ctrl+F then type "old." It will lead you to your post. At no point did I claim his movement looks old. He still moves great. And no, Nadal didn't win the FO by becoming a backboard. He became more aggressive and was helped by Novak's level dropping then ranging form mediocre to occasionally good throughout the match.

Of course Nadal can still be a backboard, but the type of 5 hour long defensive marathons he put on against Verdasco are a thing of the past. He's no longer as physical, and not quite as quick (he was pretty tired in the FO final and that's not disputable).

I don't disagree that Nadal went for his shots in sets through 2 for 4. He certainly did. But in terms of court coverage, he was everywhere and anywhere he needed to be.

I think you are speaking too soon about these 5-set marathons. I think Nadal would be just fine participating in a few of those in 2015.

I sure hope you're right.

Broken, the tour has clearly gotten worse in the last 5 years and the game has regressed. It is really depressing in that regard, but that is good for Nadal, Novak, and Murray, because their careers can be prolonged. They will have scores of easy matches until the business ends of tournaments, so they will have the necessary energy to fight through some long battles if need be.

I don't think you have to worry about, for example, Raonic being too physical for Nadal.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Broken, the tour has clearly gotten worse in the last 5 years and the game has regressed. It is really depressing in that regard, but that is good for Nadal, Novak, and Murray, because their careers can be prolonged. They will have scores of easy matches until the business ends of tournaments, so they will have the necessary energy to fight through some long battles if need be.

I don't think you have to worry about, for example, Raonic being too physical for Nadal.

Can't disagree with this post but I find it curious how you left someone's name out when talking about prolonged careers.

 

[Federberg]

Has the tour gotten worse? On what basis is this statement being made without challenge?

 

[mrzz]

I think this is a rather subjective statement (which I particularly simply don't have tennis culture enough to dispute or agree), and as is often the case with subjective things, speciffic facts may have a huge influence.

In the last five years, two players "could" have become a factor in the top of the rankings, and have not done so solely due to (at least for me) only for physical reasons. Those two players are Robin Soderling and Juan Martin del Potro. If we had those two continuosly challenging the big four, ocasionally sneaking a big win (which I am pretty sure they would have done), I guess we could have a completely different feel about these years, with some more remarkable, and even underrated, matches to talk about.

 

[Kieran]

The tour is much stronger and healthier now than it was ten years ago. You get upsets now, even Federer at Wimbledon and almost Nadal at Paris, you have upstarts who fancy themselves and you have players outside the top one or two throwing shapes and taking prizes on the big stage. This is how it should be, and it's a good sign, as opposed to what was ten years ago, where it was really dire from that perspective...

 

[Federberg]

I think this is a rather subjective statement (which I particularly simply don't have tennis culture enough to dispute or agree), and as is often the case with subjective things, speciffic facts may have a huge influence.

In the last five years, two players "could" have become a factor in the top of the rankings, and have not done so solely due to (at least for me) only for physical reasons. Those two players are Robin Soderling and Juan Martin del Potro. If we had those two continuosly challenging the big four, ocasionally sneaking a big win (which I am pretty sure they would have done), I guess we could have a completely different feel about these years, with some more remarkable, and even underrated, matches to talk about.

Even withouth Soderling and Del Potro, it's difficult for me to see any justification in the statement that the quality has declined. It is now much tougher for young players to ascend to the top rankings. Statistically surely men's tennis is stronger than ever. We might subjectively dislike some of the matches, but this is no reason to reach the conclusion that overall quality is down. The US Open this year was a case in point. I thought the semi-finals were remarkable. Yes the favourites went out, but no one can suggest that the two victors weren't deserving. They played career tennis. The fact that Kei was spent after made for a poor final, but that has nothing to do with the overall quality of play in the tournament..The fact that the favourites were summarily dismissed because they weren't able to bring their very best is a great sign for the future. There are guys out there who have the belief that they can get on a court and produce.

 

[mrzz]

^Maybe the point is in the word "overall". USO 2014 is, anyway, an exception in the last five years, and it may illustrate both point of views depending on how you judge the semis.

If (and that's a big If) you take that video of Safin x Nalbandian as an example of what you could regularly find in the early stages of a major on those days, then I see the point. But again, I haven't seen enough matches then or now to be able to make such a claim (and as you see now I am trying to understand it).

 

[brokenshoelace]

Has the tour gotten worse? On what basis is this statement being made without challenge?

Beyond the top 4, it kinda has. If Cilic and Wawrinka prove they're here to stay, Dimitrov and Nishikori continue to make hay, etc...then it's a different issue. But I think compared to the depth of the top 10 in the Federer days, as well as the depth of the top 10 in 2008-2009 (where it was REALLY strong), the tour has gotten worse. The quality of the younger generation is extremely underwhelming, for instance. I mean honestly, when Nishikori is the guy many are hanging their hopes to (and he's not even that young) then you know we're in trouble.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The tour is much stronger and healthier now than it was ten years ago. You get upsets now, even Federer at Wimbledon and almost Nadal at Paris, you have upstarts who fancy themselves and you have players outside the top one or two throwing shapes and taking prizes on the big stage. This is how it should be, and it's a good sign, as opposed to what was ten years ago, where it was really dire from that perspective...

It's only stronger at the very top. It absolutely is NOT stronger beyond that. Federer is getting upset at Wimbledon because he's not the same player he once was, not because Stakhovsky represents a jump in quality from 10 years ago. Nadal is not losing to Darcis and Rosol because these two represent a healthier tour (if so, where the hell are they?), but because his game on grass hasn't been good for the past 3 years.

Of course we still get upsets. That's the nature of tennis. But I'm supposed to take the current top 10 beyond the top 4 over Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, etc...? I wouldn't.

At the top, tennis has been awesome since pretty much 2008 when Novak and Murray became major factors. That much is undeniable. Back then, it looked like we might be in for something special especially since the Federer generation was still relevant and the likes of Soderling and Del Potro making noise. The tour was extremely deep. This isn't necessarily the case anymore...not disrespect to the Raonics of the world.

 

[Federberg]

Has the tour gotten worse? On what basis is this statement being made without challenge?

Beyond the top 4, it kinda has. If Cilic and Wawrinka prove they're here to stay, Dimitrov and Nishikori continue to make hay, etc...then it's a different issue. But I think compared to the depth of the top 10 in the Federer days, as well as the depth of the top 10 in 2008-2009 (where it was REALLY strong), the tour has gotten worse. The quality of the younger generation is extremely underwhelming, for instance. I mean honestly, when Nishikori is the guy many are hanging their hopes to (and he's not even that young) then you know we're in trouble.

Hmmm... interesting perspective. I'm agnostic on this issue. I generally tend to think - as a rule - that professional sports is getting better and more competitive over time. Still.. I'm glad to see you refer so positively to the top 10 in Federer's peak

 

[Kieran]

The tour is much stronger and healthier now than it was ten years ago. You get upsets now, even Federer at Wimbledon and almost Nadal at Paris, you have upstarts who fancy themselves and you have players outside the top one or two throwing shapes and taking prizes on the big stage. This is how it should be, and it's a good sign, as opposed to what was ten years ago, where it was really dire from that perspective...

It's only stronger at the very top. It absolutely is NOT stronger beyond that. Federer is getting at Wimbledon because he's not the same player he once was, not because Stakhovsky represents a jump in quality from 10 years ago. Nadal is not losing to Darcis and Rosol because these two represent a healthier tour (if so, where the hell are they?), but because his game on grass hasn't been good for the past 3 years.

Of course we still get upsets. That's the nature of tennis. But I'm supposed to take the current top 10 beyond the top 4 over Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, etc...? I wouldn't.

At the top, tennis has been awesome since pretty much 2008 when Novak and Murray became major factors. That much is undeniable. Back then, it looked like we might be in for something special especially since the Federer generation was still relevant and the likes of Soderling and Del Potro making noise. The tour was extremely deep. This isn't necessarily the case anymore...not disrespect to the Raonics of the world.

A monopoly isn't a sign of depth. And we never got upsets ten years ago. An upset then was Federer losing a set. Nowadays the makeweights play as if they might cause an upset, they're not just gurning for the camera at the net, getting a tickle under the chin from their hero.

The Federer generation wasn't hugely relevant, picking up crumbs here and there. Tennis is far more unstable - and therefore interesting - now...

 

[Federberg]

The tour is much stronger and healthier now than it was ten years ago. You get upsets now, even Federer at Wimbledon and almost Nadal at Paris, you have upstarts who fancy themselves and you have players outside the top one or two throwing shapes and taking prizes on the big stage. This is how it should be, and it's a good sign, as opposed to what was ten years ago, where it was really dire from that perspective...

It's only stronger at the very top. It absolutely is NOT stronger beyond that. Federer is getting at Wimbledon because he's not the same player he once was, not because Stakhovsky represents a jump in quality from 10 years ago. Nadal is not losing to Darcis and Rosol because these two represent a healthier tour (if so, where the hell are they?), but because his game on grass hasn't been good for the past 3 years.

Of course we still get upsets. That's the nature of tennis. But I'm supposed to take the current top 10 beyond the top 4 over Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, etc...? I wouldn't.

At the top, tennis has been awesome since pretty much 2008 when Novak and Murray became major factors. That much is undeniable. Back then, it looked like we might be in for something special especially since the Federer generation was still relevant and the likes of Soderling and Del Potro making noise. The tour was extremely deep. This isn't necessarily the case anymore...not disrespect to the Raonics of the world.

Don't do this! You're forcing me to agree with a creature I detest! :ras:

 

[Kieran]

The tour is much stronger and healthier now than it was ten years ago. You get upsets now, even Federer at Wimbledon and almost Nadal at Paris, you have upstarts who fancy themselves and you have players outside the top one or two throwing shapes and taking prizes on the big stage. This is how it should be, and it's a good sign, as opposed to what was ten years ago, where it was really dire from that perspective...

It's only stronger at the very top. It absolutely is NOT stronger beyond that. Federer is getting at Wimbledon because he's not the same player he once was, not because Stakhovsky represents a jump in quality from 10 years ago. Nadal is not losing to Darcis and Rosol because these two represent a healthier tour (if so, where the hell are they?), but because his game on grass hasn't been good for the past 3 years.

Of course we still get upsets. That's the nature of tennis. But I'm supposed to take the current top 10 beyond the top 4 over Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, etc...? I wouldn't.

At the top, tennis has been awesome since pretty much 2008 when Novak and Murray became major factors. That much is undeniable. Back then, it looked like we might be in for something special especially since the Federer generation was still relevant and the likes of Soderling and Del Potro making noise. The tour was extremely deep. This isn't necessarily the case anymore...not disrespect to the Raonics of the world.

Don't do this! You're forcing me to agree with a creature I detest! :ras:

:laydownlaughing

Go on, it's Christmas! :hug lot

 

[DarthFed]

The tour is much stronger and healthier now than it was ten years ago. You get upsets now, even Federer at Wimbledon and almost Nadal at Paris, you have upstarts who fancy themselves and you have players outside the top one or two throwing shapes and taking prizes on the big stage. This is how it should be, and it's a good sign, as opposed to what was ten years ago, where it was really dire from that perspective...

It's only stronger at the very top. It absolutely is NOT stronger beyond that. Federer is getting at Wimbledon because he's not the same player he once was, not because Stakhovsky represents a jump in quality from 10 years ago. Nadal is not losing to Darcis and Rosol because these two represent a healthier tour (if so, where the hell are they?), but because his game on grass hasn't been good for the past 3 years.

Of course we still get upsets. That's the nature of tennis. But I'm supposed to take the current top 10 beyond the top 4 over Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, etc...? I wouldn't.

At the top, tennis has been awesome since pretty much 2008 when Novak and Murray became major factors. That much is undeniable. Back then, it looked like we might be in for something special especially since the Federer generation was still relevant and the likes of Soderling and Del Potro making noise. The tour was extremely deep. This isn't necessarily the case anymore...not disrespect to the Raonics of the world.

A monopoly isn't a sign of depth. And we never got upsets ten years ago. An upset then was Federer losing a set. Nowadays the makeweights play as if they might cause an upset, they're not just gurning for the camera at the net, getting a tickle under the chin from their hero.

The Federer generation wasn't hugely relevant, picking up crumbs here and there. Tennis is far more unstable - and therefore interesting - now...

We didn't get as many upsets because mid 20's Roger was a hell of a lot better than mid 20's Novak and early 30's Roger. There is your main difference. The #1 now simply isn't anywhere near as dominant...And instead of classifying the 3rd best player in the world against someone like Roddick or Hewitt in 2003-2007 you are comparing him to a much younger and better version of himself. Even then you still had a massive upset in AO 05 semis. Rafa has always lost to some weaklings off clay so you saw some upsets back in his younger days too.

 

[Kieran]

Even then you still had a massive upset in AO 05 semis.

Careful, brother, Safin was used a sign of how strong the competition was back then, not how weak... :laydownlaughing

 

[the AntiPusher]

A few that maybe flew under the radar a little:

Agassi/Blake 2005 USO

Roddick-el Aynaoui 2003

Probably about half a dozen Federer/Nalbandian matches

Is Federer/Sampras underrated? Not sure, but it was a good match for a variety of reasons.

Connors/Pernfors - Wimbledon 80s.

Connors / Krickstein - USO 1991

Borg/Connors - Wimbledon 81 semi

Just a few to start with - all underrated I believe. Of course, there are plenty of great matches that get regular kudos like the Federer/Safin SF at the AO, Nadal/Fed 08 etc.

Roddick-el Aynaoui 2003


BB.. I disagree with you about this match especially the ending.. During one of the final changeovers.. Roddick gives his racket to one of the ball boys right before Younnes (I might have misspelled his name but who cares) was preparing to serve. Well, although it was a fan friendly jesture, El Aynaoui lost his serve and Roddick served it out.. I may be wrong but this is how I recall it

 

[DarthFed]

Even then you still had a massive upset in AO 05 semis.

Careful, brother, Safin was used a sign of how strong the competition was back then, not how weak... :laydownlaughing

He was well above the likes of a Nishi, Wawrinka, Rosol, Jefferson Darcy (Darcis), Kyrgios, Stakhovsky, Gulbis, Cilic, etc. I just listed off the culprits of the "huge" upsets you'd be likely to list. Are those guys better than Safin, Roddick, Nalbs, etc? Or was it tougher to beat 25 year old Roger than it is to beat the top guys today?

 

[Kieran]

Even then you still had a massive upset in AO 05 semis.

Careful, brother, Safin was used a sign of how strong the competition was back then, not how weak... :laydownlaughing

He was well above the likes of a Nishi, Wawrinka, Rosol, Jefferson Darcy (Darcis), Kyrgios, Stakhovsky, Gulbis, Cilic, etc. I just listed off the culprits of the "huge" upsets you'd be likely to list. Are those guys better than Safin, Roddick, Nalbs, etc? Or was it tougher to beat 25 year old Roger than it is to beat the top guys today?

According to your usual spiel, Federer today should be posting the same results as ten years ago, so you can answer this yourself.

Safin beating Federer in 2005 in Oz was a huge upset - that's how enfeebled things had become. Stakhovski, Nick, Rosol etc are a sign that the also-rans are willing to push it to the wire with the best of them, the way tennis used to always be played, and hopefully this trend continues (though not always at Rafa's expense, please...)...