Upset Corner - Wimbledon 2016 Edition

[Sundaymorningguy]

Djokovic is gone damn!

 

[AnonymousFan]

Querrey wins the tiebreak

 

[GameSetAndMath]

What happened in the match, is Novak injured or is Sudden Sam playing that well.

Pressure I guess. Big server, fast grass first week. Bad combo. Same thing last year with Anderson but less pressure then. Possible the weather and stoppage saves him two straight years.

Down 5-6, 0-30 on his serve when the rains came. They showed the two points, and if he'd challenged the calls he would have won both of them. :cover :nono

Both of then were in, but by a fraction of mm. It would be really difficult for the human eye to call it correctly. They were definitely not egregious bad calls and there is neither conspiracy here nor bad officiating. Besides, bad calls are part of the sport.

Novak could not challenge, because he had previously wasted all his challenges when he got them wrong. Everybody plays by the same rule.

Finally, even if he had challenges there is no telling that he would have used at the right moment. Roger actually lost the second set against Rafa in Cincy in 2013 due to bad call. But, Roger actually had challenge left, but just did not bother to challenge.

:chillout:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Upset Alert: Steve Johnson is leading Grigor by 2 sets to 1. Morevoer he is a break up in the 4th.

uzzled

You've seen the way Cougar Bait has been playing the last year, is this really an upset?

I knew Grigor was playing terrible (losing five straight tourneys in 1st round). But, I still thought it was a "technical" upset. But, it is not even that. Steven Johnson is ranked ahead of Grigor by at least 10 spots. :cover

 

[nehmeth]

Pressure I guess. Big server, fast grass first week. Bad combo. Same thing last year with Anderson but less pressure then. Possible the weather and stoppage saves him two straight years.

Down 5-6, 0-30 on his serve when the rains came. They showed the two points, and if he'd challenged the calls he would have won both of them. :cover :nono

Both of then were in, but by a fraction of mm. It would be really difficult for the human eye to call it correctly. They were definitely not egregious bad calls and there is neither conspiracy here nor bad officiating. Besides, bad calls are part of the sport.

Novak could not challenge, because he had previously wasted all his challenges when he got them wrong. Everybody plays by the same rule.

We have company here and the sound was off, so I did not know he was out of challenges. And where did I even intimate that there was a conspiracy??? I thought it was Nole being dumb not to challenge.

Dial it back a little.

 

[El Dude]

I don't know if it has been mentioned, but Novak's 3R loss is his worst since the 2009 French Open when he lost to Kohlschreiber. It ended his streak of 28 consecutive Quarterfinals, second best all-time after Roger's 36 - both are way ahead of the third best, 14 for Emerson and Lendl.

 

[lob]

I don't know if it has been mentioned, but Novak's 3R loss is his worst since the 2009 French Open when he lost to Kohlschreiber. It ended his streak of 28 consecutive Quarterfinals, second best all-time after Roger's 36 - both are way ahead of the third best, 14 for Emerson and Lendl.

even in GS SF streaks the top 3 are Roger (23), Novak (14) and Lendl /Laver(10?)...
these two records bring out the contrast between 21 century and 20th century open era men's tennis..

..streaks like these were simply unheard of in the 20th century open era. Of course it is silly to question Roger's or Novak's all-court credentials but to post such numbers in the 20th century might have been superhuman if not impossible.. whatever homogenization of conditions (surface/balls/racquets mix) means, this record brings it into sharp focus....like night and day...

 

[Fiero425]

I don't know if it has been mentioned, but Novak's 3R loss is his worst since the 2009 French Open when he lost to Kohlschreiber. It ended his streak of 28 consecutive Quarterfinals, second best all-time after Roger's 36 - both are way ahead of the third best, 14 for Emerson and Lendl.

even in GS SF streaks the top 3 are Roger (23), Novak (14) and Lendl /Laver(10?)...
these two records bring out the contrast between 21 century and 20th century open era men's tennis..

..streaks like these were simply unheard of in the 20th century open era. Of course it is silly to question Roger's or Novak's all-court credentials but to post such numbers in the 20th century might have been superhuman if not impossible.. whatever homogenization of conditions (surface/balls/racquets mix) means, this record brings it into sharp focus....like night and day...

Besides the top players being infinitely better than their competition, you have to take in consideration the homogenized courts, racket technology, and of course the extended seedings! You don't get what occurred in the past with #20 in the world playing a #9 seed in the 1st round as what happened to McEnroe at the USO when he was upset by Paul Annacone in '86! :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover

 

[El Dude]

I don't know if it has been mentioned, but Novak's 3R loss is his worst since the 2009 French Open when he lost to Kohlschreiber. It ended his streak of 28 consecutive Quarterfinals, second best all-time after Roger's 36 - both are way ahead of the third best, 14 for Emerson and Lendl.

even in GS SF streaks the top 3 are Roger (23), Novak (14) and Lendl /Laver(10?)...
these two records bring out the contrast between 21 century and 20th century open era men's tennis..

..streaks like these were simply unheard of in the 20th century open era. Of course it is silly to question Roger's or Novak's all-court credentials but to post such numbers in the 20th century might have been superhuman if not impossible.. whatever homogenization of conditions (surface/balls/racquets mix) means, this record brings it into sharp focus....like night and day...

Yes, well put. I look at the consistency of Andy Murray--with only one first week Slam exit from 2011 to the present--compared to greater players like Sampras, Agassi, etc etc.

 

[mrzz]

Besides the top players being infinitely better than their competition, you have to take in consideration the homogenized courts, racket technology, and of course the extended seedings! You don't get what occurred in the past with #20 in the world playing a #9 seed in the 1st round as what happened to McEnroe at the USO when he was upset by Paul Annacone in '86! :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover

Honestly I think it would be much more fun if he had only #16 seeds for the slams.

 

[AnonymousFan]

Milos down two sets!

 

[Fiero425]

Besides the top players being infinitely better than their competition, you have to take in consideration the homogenized courts, racket technology, and of course the extended seedings! You don't get what occurred in the past with #20 in the world playing a #9 seed in the 1st round as what happened to McEnroe at the USO when he was upset by Paul Annacone in '86! :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover

Honestly I think it would be much more fun if he had only #16 seeds for the slams.

I think it has helped the top player too much; at least the lack of variety in the winners! :nono :cover

 

[Backhand_DTL]

Besides the top players being infinitely better than their competition, you have to take in consideration the homogenized courts, racket technology, and of course the extended seedings! You don't get what occurred in the past with #20 in the world playing a #9 seed in the 1st round as what happened to McEnroe at the USO when he was upset by Paul Annacone in '86! :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover

Honestly I think it would be much more fun if he had only #16 seeds for the slams.

I think it has helped the top player too much; at least the lack of variety in the winners! :nono :cover

While it surely helps the top players to start smoothly into the tournament it's probably much more important for the players ranked 17-32 as it greatly improves their chances to get at least the points and prize money for reaching the 3rd round.

Also the top players dominating the Masters Tournaments, where the top seeds can start against a Top 20 player in a best-of-three match, to a similar degree as the Slams indicate it wouldn't change too much for them.

It would lead to more imbalanced draws and I would expect a slight increase of early upsets but in the constellation with four players that are clearly above the field the probability of two of them reaching the final / one of them winning the tournament would still be very high.

 

[isabelle]

Nishikori beaten by Cilic
Federer beaten by Milos 2 more upsets

 

[Front242]

Nishikori wasn't really an upset considering he came in with a bruised rib. Could've ended up making himself worse. Besides, on grass, I'd say Cilic is the far better player anyway.

 

[Kieran]

Yeah, it's not a huge upset, Cilic beating Nishi. I don't even think it's a huge one #6 beating #3, given the age gap and the fact that Federer was coming off a tight one two days before...