MensTennisForums.com - Reply to Topic

Thread: Why Are All The Flukes At The AO? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
11-17-2012 03:41 PM
Litotes
Re: Why Are All The Flukes At The AO?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PiggyGotRoasted View Post
Its not, Nadal won the US Open, Del Potro won the US Open, Murray won the US Open, Berdych made wimbledon final, Nalbandian won wimbledon final.

Other flukes do happen
You mean reached.
11-17-2012 03:23 PM
LeChuck
Re: Why Are All The Flukes At The AO?

Regarding the Australian Open, Kuerten was the prime example of a big name player that preferred to relax and enjoy the brief off-season, rather than training hard and preparing himself for the Australian summer, unlike someone like Agassi who would run up and down hills. He was usually so sluggish at the start of the season.

The rebound ace surface really should have suited his game pretty well. However his Australian Open record was absolutely terrible for player of his ability, with a 3rd appearance in 2004 his best result in Melbourne, and with him losing more matches than he won there (8 defeats from 15 matches).
11-17-2012 03:07 PM
Burrow
Re: Why Are All The Flukes At The AO?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida View Post
Yes, Verker's run was outstanding. How he did it it's beyond me. He did NOTHING apart from that 2 weeks. He's gotta be the weakest grand slam finalist in the open era.
His capabilities certainly weren't weak, but I understand what you mean. He had been incredibly injury prone before and after Roland Garros 2003 along with motivational issues. He managed to bag a couple of ATP titles during his short spell on tour.
11-17-2012 02:57 PM
BauerAlmeida
Re: Why Are All The Flukes At The AO?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burrow View Post
It wasn't the fact Nadal hit his stride that Gaudio didn't challenge for Roland Garros or other bigger titles, it was because of himself. He wasn't just losing to Nadal, he was looking to the likes of Christophe Rochus, Olivier Patience, Ruben Ramirez-Hidalgo, well past it and out of shape Marat Safin amongst others. He was always an unpredictable player and that's one of the reasons which made him like-able to many, myself included.

As for Verkerk. It didn't seem like he ensured a one sided final at the time, it seemed like if he played the level of tennis he did against Coria, that he'd leave Ferrero with another plate. Nobody was talking about Ferrero, it was all Verkerk and how the match was on his racket. Unfortunately it ended up like Soderling's finals. Verkerk played like a better version of Soderling during that championship. He was far superior at the net and he moved better, especially moving forwards, which he did plenty of. Verkerk made that tournament very exciting.
Yes, Verker's run was outstanding. How he did it it's beyond me. He did NOTHING apart from that 2 weeks. He's gotta be the weakest grand slam finalist in the open era.
11-17-2012 02:25 PM
Burrow
Re: Why Are All The Flukes At The AO?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketassist View Post
Gaudio bagelled Nadal on clay And he did win his fair share of clay court titles but Nadal hit his stride on clay the year after. He was still at a decent level in 05 and took a set off Nadal in Monte Carlo in 2006 I think it was. Shock slam winner yes but a strong clay courter.

Verkerk didn't do much besides it but knocking over both Moya and Coria was an impressive achievement, albeit it ensured a non-competitive final (JCF-Coria would have been fascinating)
It wasn't the fact Nadal hit his stride that Gaudio didn't challenge for Roland Garros or other bigger titles, it was because of himself. He wasn't just losing to Nadal, he was looking to the likes of Christophe Rochus, Olivier Patience, Ruben Ramirez-Hidalgo, well past it and out of shape Marat Safin amongst others. He was always an unpredictable player and that's one of the reasons which made him like-able to many, myself included.

As for Verkerk. It didn't seem like he ensured a one sided final at the time, it seemed like if he played the level of tennis he did against Coria, that he'd leave Ferrero with another plate. Nobody was talking about Ferrero, it was all Verkerk and how the match was on his racket. Unfortunately it ended up like Soderling's finals. Verkerk played like a better version of Soderling during that championship. He was far superior at the net and he moved better, especially moving forwards, which he did plenty of. Verkerk made that tournament very exciting.
11-17-2012 02:12 PM
GOATsol
Re: Why Are All The Flukes At The AO?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PiggyGotRoasted View Post
Its not, Nadal won the US Open, Del Potro won the US Open, Murray won the US Open, Berdych made wimbledon final, Nalbandian won wimbledon final.

Other flukes do happen
This was not a fluke. He didn't need the wind to help him like Mugray did.

Mugray would have 5 slam finals if the wind gods didn't feel bad for him and gift him his only slam.
11-17-2012 02:06 PM
Freak3yman84
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiggyGotRoasted View Post
Its not, Nadal won the US Open, Del Potro won the US Open, Murray won the US Open, Berdych made wimbledon final, Nalbandian won wimbledon final.

Other flukes do happen
I never said that other flukes don't happen...
11-17-2012 02:05 PM
PiggyGotRoasted
Re: Why Are All The Flukes At The AO?

Its not, Nadal won the US Open, Del Potro won the US Open, Murray won the US Open, Berdych made wimbledon final, Nalbandian won wimbledon final.

Other flukes do happen
11-17-2012 11:44 AM
Roy Emerson
Re: Why Are All The Flukes At The AO?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjurra View Post
Mugdull??

Early in the season -> players lack match practice -> upsets more likely.
This.
11-17-2012 12:52 AM
heya
Re: Why Are All The Flukes At The AO?

Gaudio was a tough hardcourter against Federer. He was up a break in the final set of the Toronto match, but threw it away versus Federer.
Coria totally stopped functioning in the 2004 French Open. He realized he could win a Slam.
It doesn't matter now...because he prefers retirement more than choking many Slams away again & faking
that he contended for more Slams (unlike Hewitt & Roddick).
11-17-2012 12:27 AM
BauerAlmeida
Re: Why Are All The Flukes At The AO?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketassist View Post
Gaudio bagelled Nadal on clay And he did win his fair share of clay court titles but Nadal hit his stride on clay the year after. He was still at a decent level in 05 and took a set off Nadal in Monte Carlo in 2006 I think it was. Shock slam winner yes but a strong clay courter.

Verkerk didn't do much besides it but knocking over both Moya and Coria was an impressive achievement, albeit it ensured a non-competitive final (JCF-Coria would have been fascinating)
Yeah, I remember that match. I watched it live in fact, it was here in Buenos Aires. It was a weird match. 0-6, 6-0, 6-1 ( Nadal gave me an autograph that year ). Anyway, on topic, Gaudio had a strong season after he won RG, he won like 5 titles on clay in 2005 but after he was double bagelled by Fed in the TMC he declined at a super fast rate and never came back. And before the RG titles he was always inconsistent, he could play some amazing tennis but then be a complete disaster (the Davis Cup semi final in 2003, he was a ghost). It's a pity because he was very talented and could have won a lot before Nadal appeared, but he was a total headcase.
11-16-2012 11:31 PM
rocketassist
Re: Why Are All The Flukes At The AO?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida View Post
But Verkerk or Gaudio diddn't have any great results even on clay besides that. I don't think there were flukes because there's no such thing, they diserved to win and reach the final. Cases like Costa maybe or Moya were different, because they don't have great results outside clay, but aside from their RG title they have some other achievements on clay.
Gaudio bagelled Nadal on clay And he did win his fair share of clay court titles but Nadal hit his stride on clay the year after. He was still at a decent level in 05 and took a set off Nadal in Monte Carlo in 2006 I think it was. Shock slam winner yes but a strong clay courter.

Verkerk didn't do much besides it but knocking over both Moya and Coria was an impressive achievement, albeit it ensured a non-competitive final (JCF-Coria would have been fascinating)
11-16-2012 11:04 PM
BauerAlmeida
Re: Why Are All The Flukes At The AO?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketassist View Post
All those RG winners were not flukes- they were all excellent clay courters in an era of diverse surfaces. They couldn't win off it because it was too fast and they played with topspin.
But Verkerk or Gaudio diddn't have any great results even on clay besides that. I don't think there were flukes because there's no such thing, they diserved to win and reach the final. Cases like Costa maybe or Moya were different, because they don't have great results outside clay, but aside from their RG title they have some other achievements on clay.
11-16-2012 10:23 PM
rocketassist
Re: Why Are All The Flukes At The AO?

All those RG winners were not flukes- they were all excellent clay courters in an era of diverse surfaces. They couldn't win off it because it was too fast and they played with topspin.
11-16-2012 10:21 PM
Freak3yman84
Re: Why Are All The Flukes At The AO?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orangeball View Post
Get you facts right before you write anything, what's about the FO? All one slam wonder there such as Moya, Costa, Ferrero, Gomez, Chang just to name a few then Martin Verkek? Remember him?
1. Moya wasn't too much of a fluke because he got to another GS final.
2. Costa won his title more than a decade ago (When I said flukes, I meant fairly recent)
3. Ferrero wasn't too much of a fluke because he got to another GS final.
4. Gomez won his title more than 2 decades ago (When I said flukes, I meant fairly recent)
5. Chang wasn't too much of a fluke because he got to another 3 GS finals. ; Chang won his title more than a decade ago (When I said flukes, I meant fairly recent)
6. Verkerk is 1.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome