Most overrated tennis match [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Most overrated tennis match

Clydey
02-07-2010, 05:03 AM
What do you think is the most overrated tennis match in history? There are a couple that immediately spring to my mind.

Federer-Safin from AO 2005

I recently rewatched this encounter and I was surprised by how average vast chunks of the match were. I sat down to watch it, recalling a titanic tussle, filled with brilliant points. Needless to say, my memory failed me. There were some spectacular rallies and a few memorable points, but it really isn't the match I thought it was. Take away the drama and you are left with, for the most part, a match of pretty ordinary quality.

Federer-Nadal from Wimbledon 2008

I've always thought that this match was overrated. I doubt anyone can remember any real standout points, with the exception of the two brilliant passes in the 4th set tiebreaker.

SaFed2005
02-07-2010, 05:06 AM
I agree with your picks. I also think the Federer-Roddick Wimbledon 09 final is very much overrated. Federer was not really at his best. Sure Roddick held like 30 something consecutive games but Federer was returning very poorly and his normal passing shots were not on. Roddick was playing great but his volleys didn't improve so much all of a sudden that Federer was unable to make a single good pass.

abraxas21
02-07-2010, 05:09 AM
I agree about the past 2 Wimby finals. Both kind of muggy but the tense expectation of who was going to win made them look good.

I don't remember much about the 2005 AO Final so I can't really comment-
-

Clydey
02-07-2010, 05:11 AM
I agree with your picks. I also think the Federer-Roddick Wimbledon 09 final is very much overrated. Federer was not really at his best. Sure Roddick held like 30 something consecutive games but Federer was returning very poorly and his normal passing shots were not on. Roddick was playing great but his volleys didn't improve so much all of a sudden that Federer was unable to make a single good pass.

Mate, I saw your username and I was convinced you were going to disagree with my first pick. :lol:

But yeah, the Wimbledon 2009 final is overrated. The quality of the serving was great, but like the 2008 final, there weren't a huge number of memorable moments.

I sometimes feel that people are too eager to call a match a classic just because it goes to 5 sets. They seem to forget that a match can go 5 sets and still be very ordinary.

Action Jackson
02-07-2010, 05:14 AM
Most of Federer-Nadal matches fall in this category apart from 2.

Arkulari
02-07-2010, 05:28 AM
Wimbledon 08 is HUGELY overrated; the best Fedal match IMO is Rome 06, closely followed by Miami 05

Most Wimbledon finals of the 90's were pretty overrated as well (nostalgiatards at their best), the 96 one is probably the muggiest final I've ever seen :o

I did like the AO 05 one, but their TMC 04 match was far much better :)

MatchFederer
02-07-2010, 05:37 AM
What do you think is the most overrated tennis match in history? There are a couple that immediately spring to my mind.

Federer-Safin from AO 2005

I recently rewatched this encounter and I was surprised by how average vast chunks of the match were. I sat down to watch it, recalling a titanic tussle, filled with brilliant points. Needless to say, my memory failed me. There were some spectacular rallies and a few memorable points, but it really isn't the match I thought it was. Take away the drama and you are left with, for the most part, a match of pretty ordinary quality.



Yeah, bang on the money.

Michael Bluth
02-07-2010, 06:09 AM
How about underrated matches?

The 2009 AO is very underrated in my book. Fed and Rafa both produced many amazing shots in the first four sets even if the fifth was a letdown.

mickymouse
02-07-2010, 06:13 AM
Agree. These are rated highly only because someone was finally able to topple Federer. It's more the dramatic effect rather than the quality.

Action Jackson
02-07-2010, 06:13 AM
How about underrated matches?

The 2009 AO is very underrated in my book. Fed and Rafa both produced many amazing shots in the first four sets even if the fifth was a letdown.

Funny guy.

oranges
02-07-2010, 06:35 AM
2005 semi is still an awesome match, it's not the case of "lost the allure when not live" by any stretch of the imagination. There's also significantly more than a few brilliant points. Try vast chunks for that category.

Mechlan
02-07-2010, 07:42 AM
Have to disagree with the first pick, those last 3 sets especially were quality tennis.

Fed-Nadal matches aren't usually great, Rome 2006 was probably my favorite one.

acionescu
02-07-2010, 08:12 AM
2009 Wimbledon final

SuperSport
02-07-2010, 10:54 AM
every murray match, he is so boring to watch, mur-fed AO final, crap match, murray suck bad

Ivanatis
02-07-2010, 11:08 AM
most of the recent Wimbledon finals were pretty overrated due to their length and scorelines
and no, Fed-Hippo in Melbourne was quality

Dini
02-07-2010, 11:35 AM
Whilst I love the Madrid Semi last year, I didn't think it was high quality from start to finish. Nadal was very sloppy in the first set and just hanging in there in the second set. The third set tie breaker was top notch, though.

Wimbledon 2009 is overrated too, but I've never seen it praised for being the best quality match. What probably makes it huge in some people's books is the history attached to it. But it was actually one of Fed's poorer performances in major finals. His serve was great but off the ground he was average at best.

Shirogane
02-07-2010, 11:40 AM
Agree with the last two Wimbly finals.


His serve was great but off the ground he was average at best.Enough to get the win.

Dougie
02-07-2010, 11:51 AM
every murray match, he is so boring to watch, mur-fed AO final, crap match, murray suck bad

It was a question of "most overrated", not which player you hate. I donīt think anyone ever claimed that to be a great match by any standards.

tkr
02-07-2010, 12:11 PM
Agree with 2008 Wimbledon final. Not that good play at all. 2009 Wim. final was never put in that category I think.

R.Federer
02-07-2010, 12:13 PM
I didn't know SaFed AO 2005 was rated highly to start with -- who rates it highly? Probably only Safin!!!! :lol:
I agree though that calling that Wimbledon 2008 final an "epic" is beyond silly. The only epic thing about it was the epic lack of light. I think Federer also agrees with you that it is overrated, especially the scoreline.

legolandbridge
02-07-2010, 12:13 PM
A Grand Slam final that goes 9-7 in the decider between the best two players of a generation, with tie breaks and match points saved in the 4th is over-rated? Ok.

R.Federer
02-07-2010, 12:20 PM
A Grand Slam final that goes 9-7 in the decider between the best two players of a generation, with tie breaks and match points saved in the 4th is over-rated? Ok.

You do need to watch the match, and not watch just the scoreline, to comment on match quality. :shrug:

If matches were judged on scorelines, then we'd be talking about Roddick-Elayan..ouini.ini (sp?) being one of the best.

oranges
02-07-2010, 12:26 PM
I didn't know SaFed AO 2005 was rated highly to start with -- who rates it highly? Probably only Safin!!!! :lol:


Now this is epic, denial of an extent that fails to recognize a match is rated extremely highly by commentators and general public alike :lol: In that sense, Clydey picked the two most touted in the past decade indeed.

Clydey
02-07-2010, 12:29 PM
Now this is epic, denial of an extent that fails to recognize a match is rated extremely highly by commentators and general public alike :lol: In that sense, Clydey picked the two most touted in the past decade indeed.

Again, people too often just remember the scoreline. I literally watched the match yesterday. I used to be a huge fan of that AO 2005 semi-final. It simply wasn't as good as I remembered.

I'm not sure why you're so offended by the fact that some people don't rate it as highly as you do. Like I said, I watched it yesterday. When did you last watch it?

Dini
02-07-2010, 12:33 PM
I think some matches are overrated by the big points that are played. The AO 2005 SF had a lot of those big points that were decided by winners after long rallies, and the MP was won in emphatic fashion. Same can be said of the 2008 Wimbledon match, there were two unreal passes on consecutive points - one to get MP and another to save it. It created huge drama but in the midst of all the tension, quality can easily be overlooked.

I once saw someone rate the 2009 USO SF match between Fed and Djokovic as one of the best straight set matches, which is ridiculous in my book. I think the way MP was brought up had a lot to do with that opinion. It's those big points that stick to one's mind and the rest of the shaky stuff is forgotten. Then you re-watch it again, this time not live and you're then able to judge the quality better without the drama factor involved.

R.Federer
02-07-2010, 12:39 PM
Now this is epic, denial of an extent that fails to recognize a match is rated extremely highly by commentators and general public alike :lol: In that sense, Clydey picked the two most touted in the past decade indeed.
Oh? I don't think the OP said "in the last 10 years". When people talk about most-rated matches, usually there are a few Borg McEnroes thrown in there (not saying they're over-rated, but highly-rated).

oranges
02-07-2010, 12:41 PM
Again, people too often just remember the scoreline. I literally watched the match yesterday. I used to be a huge fan of that AO 2005 semi-final. It simply wasn't as good as I remembered.

I'm not sure why you're so offended by the fact that some people don't rate it as highly as you do. Like I said, I watched it yesterday. When did you last watch it?

I don't remember just the scoreline, I watched it practically every off season since. It's a classic. I was not offended by your post and I'm not sure how you inferred that. I just completely disagree. Except for some early patches, it was a high quality match.

Montego
02-07-2010, 12:43 PM
1. Federer - Roddick Wimb 2009 - I felt asleep

2. Kohlschreiber - Roddick AO 2008 - not too much drama despite dramatic score and a general overhype of this match, which was mediocre in terms of quality tbh

oranges
02-07-2010, 12:48 PM
Oh? I don't think the OP said "in the last 10 years". When people talk about most-rated matches, usually there are a few Borg McEnroes thrown in there (not saying they're over-rated, but highly-rated).

Still in denial :hug: I added some kind of time reference. Perhaps you'll feel better knowing that it appears on the best ever lists as well, together with those Borg-McEnroes. Either way, the point stands, you must be the only one "unaware" it is very highly rated. The rest are here just to offer opinions whether it was that good or not.

Clydey
02-07-2010, 12:50 PM
I don't remember just the scoreline, I watched it practically every off season since. It's a classic. I was not offended by your post and I'm not sure how you inferred that. I just completely disagree. Except for some early patches, it was a high quality match.

When I said that much of the match was pretty ordinary, I meant relatively speaking. In other words, relative to how I remembered the match, I found the quality to be pretty average. Maybe that had something to do with my own expectations, but I could never list it as one of the best matches ever played.

Dini
02-07-2010, 12:52 PM
When I said that much of the match was pretty ordinary, I meant relatively speaking. In other words, relative to how I remembered the match, I found the quality to be pretty average. Maybe that had something to do with my own expectations, but I could never list it as one of the best matches ever played.

Out of interest, what would you regard as the best match (you've seen)?

Clydey
02-07-2010, 01:04 PM
Out of interest, what would you regard as the best match (you've seen)?

I wouldn't say it was the greatest match ever, but I thought the 2007 Wimbledon final was outstanding. I don't get as much enjoyment out of Federer-Nadal matches as most, but I think the quality of that match pisses all over the final of a year later.

As far as what I think the greatest match ever was, I really don't know. I'm sitting here trying to recall specific matches and I can't do it with sufficient clarity.

R.Federer
02-07-2010, 01:05 PM
Still in denial :hug: I added some kind of time reference. Perhaps you'll feel better knowing that it appears on the best ever lists as well, together with those Borg-McEnroes. Either way, the point stands, you must be the only one "unaware" it is very highly rated. The rest are here just to offer opinions whether it was that good or not.

I feel so much better with your cyberhug for my state of denial. Being unaware btw, doesn't correspond to denial. And if you don't know that, I think you are due for recognizing your state of denial :lol:

mistercrabs
02-07-2010, 01:06 PM
Rafter vs. Ivanisevich in the Wimbledon final. And every match Sampras ever played.

maxxo
02-07-2010, 01:58 PM
Rafter vs. Ivanisevich in the Wimbledon final. And every match Sampras ever played.

u must be retarded

denibas77
02-07-2010, 02:00 PM
I didn't know SaFed AO 2005 was rated highly to start with -- who rates it highly? Probably only Safin!!!! :lol:
I agree though that calling that Wimbledon 2008 final an "epic" is beyond silly. The only epic thing about it was the epic lack of light. I think Federer also agrees with you that it is overrated, especially the scoreline.Really ,show me interview where he was talking about that match, exept interview after AO05 semi,which is normal.Please show us, so we can all see where Safin talks about that match:confused:.You going to have problem finding ,because even thou jurnalist keep on asking him about that match all the time , he only answer is that match is past:wavey:

R.Federer
02-07-2010, 02:22 PM
Really ,show me interview where he was talking about that match, exept interview after AO05 semi,which is normal.Please show us, so we can all see where Safin talks about that match:confused:.You going to have problem finding ,because even thou jurnalist keep on asking him about that match all the time , he only answer is that match is past:wavey:

I said "Probably only Safin" and added a LOL to that. Meaning-- a joke! Because he won. :confused:

denibas77
02-07-2010, 02:34 PM
I said "Probably only Safin" and added a LOL to that. Meaning-- a joke! Because he won. :confused:

with the bolded part you show that you meant it ,so no joke,I doubt it that anyone understand it like a joke,if this suppose to be joke ,please don't try it any more ,you're not good at joking:wavey:

tyruk14
02-07-2010, 02:38 PM
Rafter vs. Ivanisevich in the Wimbledon final. And every match Sampras ever played.

:haha:

Demiloy
02-07-2010, 02:53 PM
Wimbledon 2008 might be overrated for quality. For tension at the biggest stage, I don't think there are too many matches that match it. And for Wimbledon 2009, I think most people (sportswriter) recognize that the quality wasn't that high, so I don't really think it's overrated.

Andi-M
02-07-2010, 03:24 PM
When you re-watch a match knowing what the result is, it is hardly going to be as exciting as it was at the time. I dont think there are any matches that are 5 sets or go on for 4/5 hours that have extremely high quality tennis throughout, there are bound to be dips. But as for drama tension and excitement at the time when I watched them W Final 2001, AO SF 2005, W Final 2008 are the best matches Ive ever seen but have only been watching tennis since 1999.

Clydey
02-07-2010, 03:52 PM
When you re-watch a match knowing what the result is, it is hardly going to be as exciting as it was at the time. I dont think there are any matches that are 5 sets or go on for 4/5 hours that have extremely high quality tennis throughout, there are bound to be dips. But as for drama tension and excitement at the time when I watched them W Final 2001, AO SF 2005, W Final 2008 are the best matches Ive ever seen but have only been watching tennis since 1999.

I didn't say that I expected it to be exciting. Completely putting words in my mouth. Watching it again allows you to be objective about the quality of the match, however. All the drama is taken out of the equation and you can judge the match on its own merits.

And once again, I did not say that I expected peerless quality throughout the entire match. I really wish people would stop putting words in my mouth. I said that vast chunks of the match were very ordinary. In total, there were about 2 full sets that were of the highest quality. Someone said that the third set was high quality. I just watched the third set again. It was an error fest. I lost count of how many rallies ended in a shank. Federer was spraying forehands everywhere for much of that set and the end of the second set.

Ivanatis
02-07-2010, 05:58 PM
I didn't know SaFed AO 2005 was rated highly to start with -- who rates it highly? Probably only Safin!!!! :lol:
I agree though that calling that Wimbledon 2008 final an "epic" is beyond silly. The only epic thing about it was the epic lack of light. I think Federer also agrees with you that it is overrated, especially the scoreline.

This post is so Federer.;)

Dougie
02-07-2010, 06:07 PM
I didn't say that I expected it to be exciting. Completely putting words in my mouth. Watching it again allows you to be objective about the quality of the match, however. All the drama is taken out of the equation and you can judge the match on its own merits.

And once again, I did not say that I expected peerless quality throughout the entire match. I really wish people would stop putting words in my mouth. I said that vast chunks of the match were very ordinary. In total, there were about 2 full sets that were of the highest quality. Someone said that the third set was high quality. I just watched the third set again. It was an error fest. I lost count of how many rallies ended in a shank. Federer was spraying forehands everywhere for much of that set and the end of the second set.

I see your point, but is the match really judged by itīs merits when the drama and excitement is taken out of the equation? They are, after all, a vital part of what any match is about. The tension and excitement are what make a good match something special, and they are also explaining factors to errors and mistakes.

What I mean is that by "taking drama out of the equation" also takes the match and itīs quality out of itīs context. Some of the best dramas are rarely the highest quality, and since weīre talking about humans, itīs only understandable.

Macbrother
02-07-2010, 06:15 PM
Well you have to be specific in just how you are defining "overrated," specifically as regards to what. The 2008 Wimbledon final is certainly overrated in regards to quality; but in regards to drama and historical implications, it was huge.

Clydey
02-07-2010, 06:57 PM
I see your point, but is the match really judged by itīs merits when the drama and excitement is taken out of the equation? They are, after all, a vital part of what any match is about. The tension and excitement are what make a good match something special, and they are also explaining factors to errors and mistakes.

What I mean is that by "taking drama out of the equation" also takes the match and itīs quality out of itīs context. Some of the best dramas are rarely the highest quality, and since weīre talking about humans, itīs only understandable.

What I mean is that you can judge the quality of the tennis. Regardless of what the circumstances are surrounding the match, you can focus solely on the quality of the tennis on display. It doesn't matter whether or not the occasion has an impact on the level of tennis. When you take away the drama of watching the match live, you're taking away your immediate emotional response. You cannot judge a match like that objectively when you're watching it live.

Clydey
02-07-2010, 06:58 PM
Well you have to be specific in just how you are defining "overrated," specifically as regards to what. The 2008 Wimbledon final is certainly overrated in regards to quality; but in regards to drama and historical implications, it was huge.

I'm referring to the quality of the tennis.

Dougie
02-07-2010, 07:24 PM
What I mean is that you can judge the quality of the tennis. Regardless of what the circumstances are surrounding the match, you can focus solely on the quality of the tennis on display. It doesn't matter whether or not the occasion has an impact on the level of tennis. When you take away the drama of watching the match live, you're taking away your immediate emotional response. You cannot judge a match like that objectively when you're watching it live.

I understand. Itīs just that the way I see it, a tennis match is something that consists of several factors, and drama and excitement are very vital parts in the mix. Maybe it isnīt possible to judge a match objectively when you watch it live, but Iīm not sure any match is even meant to be judged like that, it would be simplifying things.

Some matches are top quality, some utter crap. Most matches are somewhere in between, and quite often the drama makes up for the missing quality. So looking at just the quality is pretty one-dimensional. But thatīs just my opinion.

Luinir
02-07-2010, 07:27 PM
Wimbledon 2009: Andy Roddick-Roger Federer

Norrage
02-07-2010, 07:50 PM
Wimbledon 2009: Andy Roddick-Roger Federer

Epic crap match indeed...Fed was so bad, and that was the reason Roddick could hang in there. Besides it was an all-serve fest...really boring....

I agree with the Nadal Fed of last year AO to be underrated...That match was great! Best Fedal match surely! Pity Fed failed in the 5th :(

mistercrabs
02-07-2010, 07:52 PM
What I mean is that you can judge the quality of the tennis. Regardless of what the circumstances are surrounding the match, you can focus solely on the quality of the tennis on display. It doesn't matter whether or not the occasion has an impact on the level of tennis. When you take away the drama of watching the match live, you're taking away your immediate emotional response. You cannot judge a match like that objectively when you're watching it live.

And I think you misunderstand what good tennis is. Tennis is "good" because it's entertaining, not because of its technical aspects. The plotline of Wimbledon 08, the occasional brilliant shot at pivotal moments, the drama are what made it great. That's the essence of tennis. It doesn't really matter if half the points were bad. If you watch a match back, knowing how it turns out, it loses the drama, and then it becomes about analyzing technical details, which is boring. Watching tennis removed from the drama and unpredictability is not watching real tennis.

Clydey
02-07-2010, 08:13 PM
And I think you misunderstand what good tennis is. Tennis is "good" because it's entertaining, not because of its technical aspects. The plotline of Wimbledon 08, the occasional brilliant shot at pivotal moments, the drama are what made it great. That's the essence of tennis. It doesn't really matter if half the points were bad. If you watch a match back, knowing how it turns out, it loses the drama, and then it becomes about analyzing technical details, which is boring. Watching tennis removed from the drama and unpredictability is not watching real tennis.

It has nothing to do with technical details. What you are essentially saying is that a match can be considered a classic even if it's just a complete error fest, so long as there is sufficient drama. That is utter nonsense. I have witnessed some dramatic 5 set matches, yet the quality has been shocking. It is the level of tennis that makes a tennis match, first and foremost. Everything else is secondary and only serves to complement it.

If a match doesn't stand up to repeat viewing, it's not a classic. And by definition repeat viewing means that the match no longer comes with the drama that was a part of the occasion first time around.

But thanks for trying to educate me on what "good tennis is".

Dini
02-07-2010, 08:14 PM
It has nothing to do with technical details. What you are essentially saying is that a match can be considered a classic even if it's just a complete error fest, so long as there is sufficient drama. That is utter nonsense. I have witnessed some dramatic 5 set matches, yet the quality has been shocking. It is the level of tennis that makes a tennis match, first and foremost. Everything else is secondary and only serves to complement it.

I agree with this.

mistercrabs
02-07-2010, 08:17 PM
It has nothing to do with technical details. What you are essentially saying is that a match can be considered a classic even if it's just a complete error fest, so long as there is sufficient drama. That is utter nonsense. I have witnessed some dramatic 5 set matches, yet the quality has been shocking. It is the level of tennis that makes a tennis match, first and foremost. Everything else is secondary and only serves to complement it.

But thanks for trying to educate me on what "good tennis is".

Not at all. You have to have good tennis. But half the match can be crappy errors and still be great. You can't have a great match which has no drama and very few errors. That's why watching Federer's miraculous, technically astonishing dismantlement of everyone he played for three years was BORING.

Roamed
02-07-2010, 08:31 PM
It has nothing to do with technical details. What you are essentially saying is that a match can be considered a classic even if it's just a complete error fest, so long as there is sufficient drama. That is utter nonsense. I have witnessed some dramatic 5 set matches, yet the quality has been shocking. It is the level of tennis that makes a tennis match, first and foremost. Everything else is secondary and only serves to complement it.

If a match doesn't stand up to repeat viewing, it's not a classic. And by definition repeat viewing means that the match no longer comes with the drama that was a part of the occasion first time around.

But thanks for trying to educate me on what "good tennis is".

Isn't that what you're doing too? People can find matches 'good' for different reasons, either quality- or drama-related :)

tennishero
02-07-2010, 08:53 PM
wimbledon 2008 was bit overrated.

Clydey
02-07-2010, 09:03 PM
Isn't that what you're doing too? People can find matches 'good' for different reasons, either quality- or drama-related :)

In what way am I doing that? I'm not judging people's choices here. I'm not the one telling people that they don't understand what "good tennis is".

Vida
02-07-2010, 09:20 PM
never thought there was any illusion as to W 08 final being the highest of quality match there ever was. cause it wasnt. but so much was on the line, and the script was great it is properly hailed as the goat match imv.

tealeaves
02-07-2010, 10:22 PM
I agree with your picks. I also think the Federer-Roddick Wimbledon 09 final is very much overrated. Federer was not really at his best. Sure Roddick held like 30 something consecutive games but Federer was returning very poorly and his normal passing shots were not on. Roddick was playing great but his volleys didn't improve so much all of a sudden that Federer was unable to make a single good pass.

This.

mistercrabs
02-07-2010, 10:33 PM
In what way am I doing that? I'm not judging people's choices here. I'm not the one telling people that they don't understand what "good tennis is".

Forgive me. It's just that I found this quote:

When you take away the drama of watching the match live, you're taking away your immediate emotional response. You cannot judge a match like that objectively when you're watching it live.

absolutely preposterous!

l_mac
02-07-2010, 10:50 PM
Borg-McEnroe, 1980 Wimbledon Final.

Seen it in a gazillion rain delays. Not that impressed.

Clydey
02-07-2010, 10:52 PM
Forgive me. It's just that I found this quote:



absolutely preposterous!

It couldn't be less preposterous. What part are you objecting to? I'm not sure how you can disagree with the notion that the experience of watching a match second time around is completely different. You know what happens, which means the match has been stripped of all the drama. For that reason, you can judge the match based purely on the quality of the tennis.

mistercrabs
02-07-2010, 11:00 PM
In what way am I doing that? I'm not judging people's choices here. I'm not the one telling people that they don't understand what "good tennis is".

It couldn't be less preposterous. What part are you objecting to? I'm not sure how you can disagree with the notion that the experience of watching a match second time around is completely different. You know what happens, which means the match has been stripped of all the drama. For that reason, you can judge the match based purely on the quality of the tennis.

If that's the case, why don't we remove the crowds and edit down all tennis coverage to the good shots? In fact, forget about the scorelines altogether, and watching tennis can become an exercise in admiring technical mastery. People can hit a ball back and forth, and judges can sit on the side ranking them out of 10, like figure skating.

Oh right, because it's the drama that makes a good tennis match. It's the scoreline and the personal background and the totally irrational human elements that make it so riveting. Fine you can analyze a match without the drama, but then you're not really watching tennis, or judging it as a tennis match. Your mistake is implying that a classic match can be judged purely on the basis of rational reflection and a second viewing, whereas it's the very heat of the moment and the suspense and the crowd reaction and the psychological drama that raise tennis above an exercise in technical mastery to a transcendent expression of the essence of being human.

nanoman
02-07-2010, 11:02 PM
Sampras- Agassi 1999 wimbledon final, touted by many as the finest display ever by a player, master-class, walk on water level of play.
I tried to watch that match a years ago. All I saw was a Sampras serving well, Agassi who couldn't get a read on Sampras serve when his life depends on it(as usual on fast surfaces), Agassi starting to dump BH into the net when it gets tight. Did anything special happened before I fell to sleep ?

Clydey
02-07-2010, 11:12 PM
If that's the case, why don't we remove the crowds and edit down all tennis coverage to the good shots? In fact, forget about the scorelines altogether, and watching tennis can become an exercise in admiring technical mastery. People can hit a ball back and forth, and judges can sit on the side ranking them out of 10, like figure skating.

Oh right, because it's the drama that makes a good tennis match. It's the scoreline and the personal background and the totally irrational human elements that make it so riveting. Fine you can analyze a match without the drama, but then you're not really watching tennis, or judging it as a tennis match. Your mistake is implying that a classic match can be judged purely on the basis of rational reflection and a second viewing, whereas it's the very heat of the moment and the suspense and the crowd reaction and the psychological drama that raise tennis above an exercise in technical mastery to a transcendent expression of the essence of being human.

Talk about missing the point.

By all means, continue rambling and constructing strawmen.

LinkMage
02-07-2010, 11:13 PM
2008 Wimbledon final without a doubt.

Fedmug in full display in that match. :retard:

mistercrabs
02-07-2010, 11:13 PM
Talk about missing the point.

By all means, continue rambling and constructing strawmen.

Eat my squishy green poo.

gaitare
02-07-2010, 11:26 PM
It couldn't be less preposterous. What part are you objecting to? I'm not sure how you can disagree with the notion that the experience of watching a match second time around is completely different. You know what happens, which means the match has been stripped of all the drama. For that reason, you can judge the match based purely on the quality of the tennis.

Of course the experience of watching the match for the second time is different. But watching the match live, if it had really been the match to remember, filled you with some feelings. I died a few times watching that Wimbledon 08 final in the 4th set alone. I remember what I was doing before and after that match. And when I watch it now, it wakes some of these emotions again, so by no means I can call this match overrated, even if quality was good only in patches, I cannot coerce myself to objectivity and assessment of quality of the tennis alone.

It's slightly different with the matches from the 80s and 90s I didn't watch there and then or I watched but I was too young to watch them consciously and with caution - in these cases I can adopt a cooler perspective and judge mainly the quality of tennis. But even then drama adds to my perception and "rating" of the match.

gaitare
02-07-2010, 11:30 PM
We seriously need a kind of Metacritic\Rotten Tomatoes\Shanked Forehands, Misplaced Backhands subforum here with reviews of matches by members :lol:

Corswandt
02-08-2010, 01:45 AM
What do you think is the most overrated tennis match in history? There are a couple that immediately spring to my mind.

Federer-Nadal from Wimbledon 2008

I've always thought that this match was overrated. I doubt anyone can remember any real standout points, with the exception of the two brilliant passes in the 4th set tiebreaker.

Agreed. I thought that the first two sets of the 08 Wimbledon final were rather poorly played.

Wimbledon 08 is HUGELY overrated; the best Fedal match IMO is Rome 06, closely followed by Miami 05

Agreed as well.

Sunset of Age
02-08-2010, 01:59 AM
Agreed. I thought that the first two sets of the 08 Wimbledon final were rather poorly played.

Agreed as well.

Agreed on both accounts.

2003
02-08-2010, 03:59 AM
Eat my squishy green poo.

You were winning the arguement until you choked :worship:

Mistercrabs is right though, it's not just the quality of play overall that counts, or the number of lulls, it's also the play on CLUTCH POINTS/MOMENTS.

Example, Federer was brilliant to come back from 5-2 down in that breaker in the 4th set. EVEN IF these two passing shots on match point were the only good points of the match, they were worth their weight in gold.

The reason 2009 AO final was crap, was because Fed MUG played so gargbage on break points and 0-40 on Rafas serve. He choked the match away. Thats why it sucked.

2008 Wimbledon final is not over rated because it had all the right things in all the right places. And you simply cannot judge that by watching the match a second time. But even watching it the second time, it still had the drama. Thats what made it great. Clydey is wrong when saying matches aren't dramatic on replay, they still are!

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 04:02 AM
Federer-Nadal Wimbledon.. Piss poor level of play from both players throughout the match.. Mother nature intervened and it is now regarded "as the greatest match ever". In terms of drama yes.. In terms of level of play? Yea right. Federer looked like crap through the first two sets and Nadal looked like crap for a while afterwards

Sophocles
02-08-2010, 02:02 PM
Wimbledon 2008 is clearly overrated. Both played better in 2007, which is by far their best match in a slam. Quality of play at the A.O. 2005 semi was scratchy for the 1st 3 sets, but brilliant in the 4th and particularly the 5th, so I'm not sure: in any 5-setter there will be peaks & troughs, and I think it does matter when they occur and what the level of play is when the match is won.

Castafiore
02-08-2010, 02:07 PM
A big part of the reason why Wimbledon 2008 was rathed so highly was the building tension: the momentum changing a couple of times, the rain breaks, who will handle the pressure and those rain breaks better,...

If you know the result and you just look at the match without that insecurity and without that building tension, it's never going to be as good.

In that regard, thinking back to that pressure cooker situation, it was indeed a very entertaining match. Other matches may have had more high quality play but this match was up there when talking about the tension, pressure, excitement.

abraxas21
02-08-2010, 02:08 PM
You were winning the arguement until you choked :worship:

Mistercrabs is right though, it's not just the quality of play overall that counts, or the number of lulls, it's also the play on CLUTCH POINTS/MOMENTS.

Example, Federer was brilliant to come back from 5-2 down in that breaker in the 4th set. EVEN IF these two passing shots on match point were the only good points of the match, they were worth their weight in gold.

The reason 2009 AO final was crap, was because Fed MUG played so gargbage on break points and 0-40 on Rafas serve. He choked the match away. Thats why it sucked.

2008 Wimbledon final is not over rated because it had all the right things in all the right places. And you simply cannot judge that by watching the match a second time. But even watching it the second time, it still had the drama. Thats what made it great. Clydey is wrong when saying matches aren't dramatic on replay, they still are!

i agree with the bolded part. it's like a basketball match. if you hit the game winner, nobody is going to remember all the other points that came before. it's simply the game winner that holds all the weight and most of the memories in people's minds.

Action Jackson
02-08-2010, 02:10 PM
Rome 2006 final is the best match between Federer and Nadal. Clydey, I thought it was excellent first time around and the same second time around as well.

As Soph said there are going to be peaks and troughs in 5 set matches, but 2008 Wimbledon is very overrated. It was then and it is the same now.

bokehlicious
02-08-2010, 02:11 PM
AO 2005 semi (Fed-Safin)
W 2008 final
Rome 2006 final
WEC 2005 final

Clydey
02-08-2010, 02:20 PM
Rome 2006 final is the best match between Federer and Nadal. Clydey, I thought it was excellent first time around and the same second time around as well.


I agree. There are many matches that remain extremely watchable the second time around. That Rome final was quality stuff.

abraxas21
02-08-2010, 02:21 PM
Every match is which Roger Federer lost is overrated and people would be better off forgetting them.

Action Jackson
02-08-2010, 02:21 PM
AO 2005 semi (Fed-Safin)
W 2008 final
Rome 2006 final
WEC 2005 final

How about any match that Fed lost?

Castafiore
02-08-2010, 02:24 PM
How about any match that Fed lost?
Rome 2006 final, Nadal def. Federer: 6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 2-6,7-6

Collective
02-08-2010, 02:25 PM
Wimbledon 2008 hands down. It's not even close.

MariaV
02-08-2010, 02:32 PM
Rome 2006 final is the best match between Federer and Nadal. Clydey, I thought it was excellent first time around and the same second time around as well.


Absolutely fenomenal match, it was the first match that made me troll on MTF.

oranges
02-08-2010, 02:36 PM
Aren't these arguments kind of missing the point of the thread and isn't it exactly why some of the matches are likely to be overrated. Those crucial points might be worth their weight in gold in a live match, but when you rewatch them, you get a more balanced view of the match. While I don't agree that you can ever fully extricate yourself from the drama/significance elements, you do get a perspective which ones stand out more solely on overall quality.

What constitutes overrated is another matter. As an example, I wouldn't call 2001 Wimbledon final, one of my all-time favorites, overrated simply because I've never seen it referred to as supreme quality match. It's always put among the most memorable primarily due to drama, atmosphere and emotional elements, which it had in abundance. Quality-wise, it doesn't stand to AO 2005 semi, which is the reason why when I'm in withdrawal in the off season and need a tennis fix, I'm far more likely to pick the latter.

2008 Wimbledon was hailed as the best match ever for a long while, which it clearly isn't by any stretch of imagination. It has been toned down by now and it's likely that in due time it will be rated for what it really was -- a match of historical importance with some great drama.

rocketassist
02-08-2010, 02:41 PM
Easily 2008 Wimbledon final- first three sets were crap and Fed was mugging around, he nearly lost 4, 4 and 4 (was 0-40 down at 4-4 I think)

Castafiore
02-08-2010, 02:41 PM
^^ If you're looking at the sport as a purist, you'll be able to enjoy a match if you know the result.

Give me a live match with all the nerves, insecurities and tension with high quality play mixed in with low quality play over watching a series of pitch perfect shots without any tension because you know the result of the match anyway.