Djoker d. Verdasco 6-7 (9-7), 6-3, 6-3 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Djoker d. Verdasco 6-7 (9-7), 6-3, 6-3

Dimonator133
10-17-2007, 06:01 PM
The Djoker, the Smoker, the Midnight Toker


:worship:

Deathless Mortal
10-17-2007, 06:02 PM
Verdasco 0/10 BPs converted :rolleyes: :smash: :smash:

Voo de Mar
10-17-2007, 06:03 PM
6-7(7-9) :wavey:

dylan24
10-17-2007, 06:04 PM
novak=brain
verdasco=no brain

ufokart
10-17-2007, 06:05 PM
Verdasco break point conversion :spit:

aeronatasha
10-17-2007, 06:05 PM
Novak was struggling badly, very poor 1st serve, but never lost his nerve. Hard to watch. Some excellent shots from Verdasco and some unbelievable misses from Novak.
Still, congrats to Nole. Hate to see him playing against Ferrero.

ezekiel
10-17-2007, 06:06 PM
Good match, hard hitting and all but Nole will play better than that. 'Dasco kind of gave up when he got broken, he played either passive or aggressive and Nole played terrific on his serve bps saving 10 of them

Raymz
10-17-2007, 06:06 PM
damn this was so close. if only verdasco could took one of those chances. but congrats Nando for great match :yeah:

stebs
10-17-2007, 06:07 PM
Verdasco the headcase loses another match that was winnable. 0/10 BP conversion and the final chance he had at 3-3 he was in control and missed a simple forehand.

krystlel
10-17-2007, 06:08 PM
Typical Verdasco playing the big points poorly. I was surprised he was able to win the first set despite blowing all those opportunities.

trixtah
10-17-2007, 06:09 PM
High level from Verdasco but couldn't keep it up and missed all those bps. Entertaining to watch though

ufokart
10-17-2007, 06:15 PM
5 brake point chances wasted in the 3rd set, nice :lol:

Fee
10-17-2007, 06:15 PM
:banana:

Fee
10-17-2007, 06:18 PM
[3] N Djokovic (SRB) d F Verdasco (ESP) 67(7) 63 63

from the ATP website. Trixtah is right, only the lower score of the TB is listed.

scoobs
10-17-2007, 06:18 PM
to what are you referring?


cause you obviously have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to writing scores:rolls:
Are you dumb?

When a set score is 6-7 then the one who got the 7 games got the most points so the bit in brackets should be (7-9) to indicate the overall losing player won the first set by 9 points to 7

scoobs
10-17-2007, 06:20 PM
Well you can either just write the lower score, or you can write both but if you write both, get them the right way around.

The score in the thread title says Djokovic lost the tiebreak in spite of having 9 points to Verdasco's 7

trixtah
10-17-2007, 06:21 PM
Are you dumb?

When a set score is 6-7 then the one who got the 7 games got the most points so the bit in brackets should be (7-9) to indicate the overall losing player won the first set by 9 points to 7

no...the brackets indicate only one score because the scoreline will tell you who was the winner. Then, since tiebreaks are up to 7 OR win by two for above, the lower score is written. what the heck? I thought everyone knew this by now?

justClaudia
10-17-2007, 06:22 PM
:awww:

Voo de Mar
10-17-2007, 06:22 PM
to what are you referring?


cause you obviously have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to writing scores:rolls:

I'm surprised that you're so stupid :shrug: And you don't know nothing about writing scores in a correct way
Change into 6-7(7) 6-3 6-3 or 6-7(7-9) 6-3 6-3 you mug :wavey:

Rogiman
10-17-2007, 06:22 PM
Take a cover before the Serbs come to take over the site.

Dimonator133
10-17-2007, 06:22 PM
Well you can either just write the lower score, or you can write both but if you write both, get them the right way around.

The score in the thread title says Djokovic lost the tiebreak in spite of having 9 points to Verdasco's 7

:retard:


you can write it either (7) or (9-7) :bigclap:

trixtah
10-17-2007, 06:23 PM
I'm surprised that you're so stupid :shrug: And you don't know nothing about writing scores in a correct way
Change into 6-7(7) 6-3 6-3 or 6-7(7-9) 6-3 6-3 you mug :wavey:

Why would you put 7-9? that's just repetitive...

Rogiman
10-17-2007, 06:23 PM
I'm surprised that you're so stupid :shrug: And you don't know nothing about writing scores in a correct way
Change into 6-7(7) 6-3 6-3 or 6-7(7-9) 6-3 6-3 you mug :wavey::lol:

Voo Rules! :yeah:

scoobs
10-17-2007, 06:23 PM
Why would you put 7-9? that's just repetitive...
Yes it is but either is acceptable and I have seen both used.

trixtah
10-17-2007, 06:23 PM
How did we get on this shitty topic!?!! That's the real mystery here :p

scoobs
10-17-2007, 06:24 PM
The point is the score in the thread title conforms to neither of the accepted ways of writing it

trixtah
10-17-2007, 06:25 PM
The point is the score in the thread title conforms to neither of the accepted ways of writing it

Agreed and acceptance of terms :)

Alex999
10-17-2007, 06:25 PM
Nice win, but Novak served only 50% (1st serve). Verdasco was inconsistent. He played some good shots, but couldn't convert anything.

Fee
10-17-2007, 06:26 PM
Why would you put 7-9? that's just repetitive...

It is, but I believe that the Slams list scores this way, with the full TB score, in order as Voo has shown. The ATP only lists the lower score. Perhaps the ITF has agreed to list the full score, in the order of the players' names.

GlennMirnyi
10-17-2007, 06:26 PM
About the match, the usual grinding work of the Serb cheater.

scoobs
10-17-2007, 06:26 PM
it conforms to one of the two

the second of which is not Voodoo's:p
Unbelievable.

Fee
10-17-2007, 06:30 PM
Oh, I actually never really noticed it :p

Admittedly, it's a vague memory, but I'm going to look around a little bit and see what I can find (because I need another excuse to procrastinate :lol: )

Voo de Mar
10-17-2007, 06:31 PM
exactly, then why did VooDoo create this whole hulabaloo!?!?!??!?!

I've just said that the scoreline is written incorrectly. And you are talking bullshits instead of changing the numbers in the bracket.

Sjengster
10-17-2007, 06:32 PM
I see you're giving an excellent demonstration in how to win friends and influence people, Dimonator.

I just thought I'd throw this into the discussion: for the last few years the ATP has started writing the higher, rather than the lower tiebreak score, meaning that if you look at a player's results from about 2004 onwards you'll get the wrong scoreline. The older ones still have the lower score - a typical piece of needless confusion on their part.

MCL
10-17-2007, 06:32 PM
:hatoff: to Nole - even though Verdasco gave him trouble, I was pretty confident that Djoko would pull through.

trixtah
10-17-2007, 06:33 PM
I see you're giving an excellent demonstration in how to win friends and influence people, Dimonator.

I just thought I'd throw this into the discussion: for the last few years the ATP has started writing the higher, rather than the lower tiebreak score, meaning that if you look at a player's results from about 2004 onwards you'll get the wrong scoreline. The older ones still have the lower score - a typical piece of needless confusion on their part.

That would be fucked up...because then you'd get tiebreak scores like "(7)" and you wouldn't know what the hell was going on. They seriously do this?

Admittedly, it's a vague memory, but I'm going to look around a little bit and see what I can find (because I need another excuse to procrastinate :lol: )

ahah I've got an exam in a few hours as well but...but...but Madrid is on :(

Lol at scoobs response below

Fee
10-17-2007, 06:34 PM
I see you're giving an excellent demonstration in how to win friends and influence people, Dimonator.

I just thought I'd throw this into the discussion: for the last few years the ATP has started writing the higher, rather than the lower tiebreak score, meaning that if you look at a player's results from about 2004 onwards you'll get the wrong scoreline. The older ones still have the lower score - a typical piece of needless confusion on their part.

Really? Typical ATP silliness, they should just list both of them to clear up any confusion.

I looked at the Wimbledon site and they only list one number on the PDF draws. I wonder what Davis Cup does...

Sjengster
10-17-2007, 06:37 PM
Let me clarify: they've made this change with tiebreaks where one of the players gets into double figures. So, a 9-7 win is still written as (7).

However, anything above that is now recorded in two different ways. Here are some examples:

Paris 2003, Federer def. Verkerk 6-7 (3), 7-6 (12), 7-6 (6): Federer won the second set tiebreak 14-12.

Madrid 2006, Federer def. Soderling 7-6 (5), 7-6 (10): Federer won this second tiebreak 10-8, not 12-10.

trixtah
10-17-2007, 06:39 PM
Let me clarify: they've made this change with tiebreaks where one of the players gets into double figures. So, a 9-7 win is still written as (7).

However, anything above that is now recorded in two different ways. Here are some examples:

Paris 2003, Federer def. Verkerk 6-7 (3), 7-6 (12), 7-6 (6): Federer won the second set tiebreak 14-12.

Madrid 2006, Federer def. Soderling 7-6 (5), 7-6 (10): Federer won this second tiebreak 10-8, not 12-10.

What a retarded thing to do...they might as well just throw numbers at us and let us recreate the match ourselves...

scoobs
10-17-2007, 06:40 PM
Let me clarify: they've made this change with tiebreaks where one of the players gets into double figures. So, a 9-7 win is still written as (7).

However, anything above that is now recorded in two different ways. Here are some examples:

Paris 2003, Federer def. Verkerk 6-7 (3), 7-6 (12), 7-6 (6): Federer won the second set tiebreak 14-12.

Madrid 2006, Federer def. Soderling 7-6 (5), 7-6 (10): Federer won this second tiebreak 10-8, not 12-10.
Well that's mental.

Apemant
10-17-2007, 06:40 PM
exactly, then why did VooDoo create this whole hulabaloo!?!?!??!?!

He didn't create anything. He simply pointed to an error in your title, and you made a typical knee-jerk reaction as if it's inconceivable that you could possibly make an error.

Well, here's the newsflash: you did. It's either just 6-7(7), OR, if you go on to put both numbers, put them in the correct way, just like Voo told you.

Burrow
10-17-2007, 06:41 PM
Let me clarify: they've made this change with tiebreaks where one of the players gets into double figures. So, a 9-7 win is still written as (7).

However, anything above that is now recorded in two different ways. Here are some examples:

Paris 2003, Federer def. Verkerk 6-7 (3), 7-6 (12), 7-6 (6): Federer won the second set tiebreak 14-12.

Madrid 2006, Federer def. Soderling 7-6 (5), 7-6 (10): Federer won this second tiebreak 10-8, not 12-10.

Confusing stuff. :confused:

ufokart
10-17-2007, 06:42 PM
exactly, then why did VooDoo create this whole hulabaloo!?!?!??!?!

What a jerk :lol:

Sjengster
10-17-2007, 06:43 PM
Confusing stuff. :confused:

Just like their decision to now have a player's results in backwards order, from December to January, it's a lot of completely meaningless effort. Think about how long it takes to change all of that, and to what end?

scarecrows
10-17-2007, 06:44 PM
Let me clarify: they've made this change with tiebreaks where one of the players gets into double figures. So, a 9-7 win is still written as (7).

However, anything above that is now recorded in two different ways. Here are some examples:

Paris 2003, Federer def. Verkerk 6-7 (3), 7-6 (12), 7-6 (6): Federer won the second set tiebreak 14-12.

Madrid 2006, Federer def. Soderling 7-6 (5), 7-6 (10): Federer won this second tiebreak 10-8, not 12-10.

damn, they're so stupid

thanks for clarifying this

trixtah
10-17-2007, 06:53 PM
W.T.F? Then it wouldn't be in parenthesis. Now you're just making things up. We call this "pulling a Glenn" around here.

How about this? 7(6-) 6-4 5(-7) 9-9(15). Tell me how the match went. Just like nomenclature in chemistry, you don't fuck with it!

Dimonator133
10-17-2007, 06:57 PM
W.T.F? Then it wouldn't be in parenthesis.

no shit it wouldn't be parentheSES. So why did you say the scoreline written in this title suggests a 5-set match. It CLEARLY doesn't.

1) it wouldn't be in parentheses

2) this is 2007, not 1907

scoobs
10-17-2007, 06:58 PM
it indicates nothing of the sort


a 9-7 second set would have had to take place DECADES ago

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I'll try this one last time.

You write a score

Player 1 def. Player 2

All scores thereafter should be in the order of player 1's score then player 2's score for the set and if necessary for the points in a tiebreak. This aids clarity and understanding when reading it.

So if Verdasco wins the first set 7-6 but loses the match, you would expect to see
Djokovic d. Verdasco 6-7(7-9) .....

because Djokovic's name is first so his 7 tiebreak points are first, Verdasco's name is second so his 9 tiebreak points are second, following the structure of the set score, which has Verdasco's 7 second in the order.

The alternative of course is to simply put 6-7(7) as has been said earlier but if you must put both point scores in you should write them consistently with the other scores to avoid confusion.

Sjengster
10-17-2007, 07:00 PM
damn, they're so stupid

thanks for clarifying this

On further examination, it gets even better. I thought there was a clear delineation between years when they made this change, but look at this:

Rotterdam 2004, Henman def. Federer 6-3, 7-6 (11): Henman won this tiebreak 11-9.

TMC 2004 (nine months later), Federer def. Safin 6-3, 7-6 (18): Federer won this tiebreak 20-18.

Monte Carlo 2005, Gasquet def. Federer 6-7 (4), 6-2, 7-6 (10): Gasquet won the final tiebreak 10-8.

RG 2005, Federer def. Gonzalez 7-6 (11), 7-5, 6-2: Federer won the tiebreak 11-9.

TMC 2005, Nalbandian def. Federer 6-7 (4), 6-7 (11), 6-2, 6-1, 7-6 (3): Federer won the second set tiebreak 13-11. :rolleyes:

Notice that both times the lower score is presented is in matches at the TMC - perhaps the ITF insist on keeping it like that. I tend towards a more simple analysis, which is that a giant error has been made.

I saw all these matches live and have tapes of most of them, which is why I can remember the right scores - heaven knows how many results there are on the ATP site that have inconsistent tiebreak scores in the same year.

Caerula Sanguis
10-17-2007, 07:01 PM
On Madrid Master homepage. The live score show this 7(7)-6,3-6,3-6. Now that's even more misleading.

scoobs
10-17-2007, 07:03 PM
On Madrid Master homepage. The live score show this 7(7)-6,3-6,3-6. Now that's even more misleading.
I think they should scrap tiebreaks and play long sets again :)

trixtah
10-17-2007, 07:03 PM
I think they should scrap tiebreaks and play long sets again :)

Just to avoid confusion haha

Manon
10-17-2007, 07:12 PM
May I? Can I? Tell me! I am new here, don't now the rulz jet.

http://usera.imagecave.com/Manon/novak/m001.jpg

ChinoRios4Ever
10-17-2007, 07:14 PM
Verdasco: learn to play with the score you idiot :mad:

expected win by Nole

aeronatasha
10-17-2007, 07:19 PM
The funniest part was when Nole hit one of the ball girls (near the chair umpire) hard on the face during return. You should have seen his face, he couldn't believe what he'd done. Naturally, he apologized to her, and hugged and kissed her. Everyone was laughing. :o

Beforehand
10-17-2007, 07:50 PM
Dimonator's not exactly..."wrong", so much as he has decided to use one of the most confusing possible ways, and thus, one that isn't used so much, of writing a scoreline.

There are a lot of plenty reasonable people acting very unreasonably in this thread. Let it go, everyone.

ReturnWinner
10-17-2007, 07:52 PM
its not confusing at all,you read Verdasco won 76 the first set and the score of the tiebreak was 9-7, what the hell is wrong with that

scoobs
10-17-2007, 07:56 PM
its not confusing at all,you read Verdasco won 76 the first set and the score of the tiebreak was 9-7, what the hell is wrong with that
Of course it is

Think of a tennis newbie

Doesn't know if it was a best of 3 or best of 5 match because they're not sure which tournies are which yet.

Find the scoring system slightly confusing anyway.

They're sat there wondering if Nole won a best of 5 in straight sets and the score's been wrote down slightly wrong, or was it best of 3 and Verdasco won the tiebreak but in that case why does it suggest Nole won it 9-7 or did Verdasco actually win it and that's the correct way to write it or what?

Needless confusion. I understand it but it's better to write it in such a way as not to cause any confusion.

Beforehand
10-17-2007, 07:58 PM
It's really not as difficult for people with a bit of reason as you're pretending, Chris.

Voo de Mar
10-17-2007, 07:59 PM
They're sat there wondering if Nole won a best of 5 in straight sets and the score's been wrote down slightly wrong, or was it best of 3 and Verdasco won the tiebreak but in that case why does it suggest Nole won it 9-7 or did Verdasco actually win it and that's the correct way to write it or what?


Exactly.

Beforehand
10-17-2007, 07:59 PM
Dimonator, lest I give you the impression that you're doing and saying nothing wrong, you could really be less needlessly combative and defensive, and also attempt using some sort of sentence structure and punctuation.

aeronatasha
10-17-2007, 08:00 PM
The funniest part was when Nole hit one of the ball girls (near the chair umpire) hard on the face during return. You should have seen his face, he couldn't believe what he'd done. Naturally, he apologized to her, and hugged and kissed her. Everyone was laughing.

scoobs
10-17-2007, 08:05 PM
It's really not as difficult for people with a bit of reason as you're pretending, Chris.
I disagree.

I still talk to people who don't know whether this event or that event is best of 5 and find the scoring confusing. It doesn't help when people deliberately make it worse.

Voo de Mar
10-17-2007, 08:07 PM
Dimonator's not exactly..."wrong", so much as he has decided to use one of the most confusing possible ways, and thus, one that isn't used so much, of writing a scoreline.



Obviously he is wrong :) More confusing (and correct) way is 7-6(9-7) 3-6 3-6 but a transcript
6-7(9-7) 6-3 6-3
or
6-7(7-2) 6-4 7-5
or
6-3 6-7(7-4) 6-4
is ALWAYS wrong.
What is worse, he has attacked me insted of confessing to guilt ;)

Beforehand
10-17-2007, 08:07 PM
I disagree.

I still talk to people who don't know whether this event or that event is best of 5 and find the scoring confusing. It doesn't help when people deliberately make it worse.

Not knowing the event is one thing, but not being able to read a scoreline that is relatively clear is quite another. He even had commas and parentheses, etc., in a reasonable place. I don't deny he picked one annoying way to do it, but it's not nearly as bad as the fun little mob mentality here has attempted to make it. Personally, I quite prefer the way he's written it to (7-9), but that, I assumed, is just me.

Beforehand
10-17-2007, 08:12 PM
Obviously he is wrong :) More confusing (and correct) way is 7-6(9-7) 3-6 3-6 but a transcript
6-7(9-7) 6-3 6-3
or
6-7(7-2) 6-4 7-5
or
6-3 6-7(7-4) 6-4
is ALWAYS wrong.
What is worse, he has attacked me insted of confessing to guilt ;)
:ras: We shall agree to disagree, which technically, according to the Bible, makes you incorrect.

I rather dislike Dimonator's style of posting and general humanity, but still...

ReturnWinner
10-17-2007, 08:18 PM
Obviously he is wrong :) More confusing (and correct) way is 7-6(9-7) 3-6 3-6 but a transcript
6-7(9-7) 6-3 6-3
or
6-7(7-2) 6-4 7-5
or
6-3 6-7(7-4) 6-4
is ALWAYS wrong.
What is worse, he has attacked me insted of confessing to guilt ;)

you have a serious fetish with tiebreaks

Burrow
10-17-2007, 08:21 PM
you have a serious fetish with tiebreaks

Come on...:rolleyes:

trixtah
10-17-2007, 08:21 PM
Doesn't know if it was a best of 3 or best of 5 match because they're not sure which tournies are which yet.



What I've been saying!!! Gah he's so ignorant. I'm out of this thread (unless it's to flame a certain idiot)

Voo de Mar
10-17-2007, 08:22 PM
you have a serious fetish with tiebreaks

That's right :yeah:
And the funny thing is when someone tries to tell me that I don't know anything about tie-breaks :haha:

Lee
10-17-2007, 08:47 PM
Not knowing the event is one thing, but not being able to read a scoreline that is relatively clear is quite another. He even had commas and parentheses, etc., in a reasonable place. I don't deny he picked one annoying way to do it, but it's not nearly as bad as the fun little mob mentality here has attempted to make it. Personally, I quite prefer the way he's written it to (7-9), but that, I assumed, is just me.

One of the handful of posts that's :yeah: