friend , the biggest fluke was nadull`s us open , I mean , that gs that he won with a challenger level with guys like verdasco and youznhy (old) in QF and semis!!!! at least federer played many rg`s finals , nadal the maximun in us open was semis and in all semis he was humilliated especially by delpo , but when the courts were more slows nadull can complete the grand slam by the happy of the ATP that did all the things for that , especially slown down arthur ashe.
all the 2010 was a really fluke , all the big platers in patetic levels.
It was at the start of the season where several players aren't match-fit yet and before Novak/Muzza were that good and when Rafa was still inconsistent off clay.
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.
All the surprises at the Aussie Open are almost the direct result of the fact that players have just finished their offseason training and some players have improved more than others during the offseason.
Players often use the "off season" to reinvent themselves, be it physically, mentally, or technically. Many of them have had a chance to implement new coaching staff and approaches. Accordingly, their confidence is at an all-time high. The losses haven't started piling up, and there's no source of disbelief. Their opponents, on the other hand, are often quite taken aback. It's a perfect storm for "hot" players.
It helps that the AO, especially before it switched to plexi-pushin', probably best accommodates modern players. And as the first major, players are at their freshest for the event. It's probably why it seems to host the most thrillers.
lol @ people blaming a one month offseason on players not doing so good at the aus open
though the heat a different story it can get hot in melbourne in january and most of the players dont come here early enough to get used to the conditions
RG had a lot of flukes when its surface was slow clay and there were underdogs such as Costa,Verkerk,Galo Blanco,Meligeni... who were capable of demolishing top ten players
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.
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.
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).
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).
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mens Tennis Forums
18.5M posts
88K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to male tennis players and enthusiasts. Talk about everything from the ATP, NSMTA, to college Tennis and even everything about equipment. It's all here!