[uxyzapenje]

On a serious note, I don't know about the others, but Tsonga and Gonzalez played amazing and fully deserved it. The better question would be why couldn't the players continue their forms. I remember when I 1st saw Tsonga vs. Roddick (I think it was USO 2007), Jo was low ranked/unknown and I said 'WTF, this guy is great' and was so glad he got to the final in AO.

[philosophicalarf]

Originally Posted by Burrow

Or these players were simply playing excellent tennis in their own right.

These runs by unexpected players are amongst my fonder memories in the sport. They acquired something which today's underdogs could only dream of. Balls, obviously.

People have bitter memories of Clement reaching the final, because seemingly almost everyone wanted and expected Grosjean to do so, but it doesn't take away from the fact that he strolled past a young Federer, beat former champion Kafelnikov and edged out Grosjean himself in an extremely close match, playing creative tennis and daring to approach the net, especially for a smaller man.

Schuettler was a rock, if not fortunate of the withdrawal of Safin and the fact Roddick was playing at 75% due to his marathon against El Aynaoui. He played fearless tennis up until the final where the wheels fell off.

Baghdatis played magical tennis. There was just a sense of inevitability that he would reach the final and if it weren't for his legs, I think Federer would have had to have played one of the most clutch matches of his career to win.

Gonzalez and Tsonga hit the form of their careers. Both served well and dominated from the baseline, with Tsonga's drop volley's never better.

People can say that it was because Nadal, Djokovic and Murray hadn't yet reached their prime, without judging the performances on their own merit, because either they can't remember them nor care to see them but every one of these players played a level of tennis worthy of a grand slam finalist.

The answer to your question is that nobody exactly knows why, each of these men probably have different reasons. What they all have in common is that they were physically and mentally prepared. Without the grind and troubles of the tour, I'd imagine that these players physical and mental bruises would have healed and that they come back onto the tour feeling refreshed and looking forward to the first big one of the year. There's no doubt that these players proved mentally stronger during that fortnight than any in their career so I'd be more inclined to go with the inkling that their mentally approach had been resynthesized.

Far too sensible and considered for MTF. Consider yourself downvoted (joke).

[Orangeball]

Originally Posted by Freak3yman84

Schuetmug, Mugzalez, Clemug, Tsongmug, Mugdull, Mugdhatis, etc.

I'm starting to think it's fixed. Discuss.

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?

[Freak3yman84]

Originally Posted by Orangeball

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.

[rocketassist]

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.

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

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.

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

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)

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

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.

[heya]

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).

[Roy Emerson]

Originally Posted by bjurra

Mugdull??

Early in the season -> players lack match practice -> upsets more likely.

This.

[PiggyGotRoasted]

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

[Freak3yman84]

Originally Posted by PiggyGotRoasted

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...

[GOATsol]

Originally Posted by PiggyGotRoasted

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.

[Burrow]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

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.

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by Burrow

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.