Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Forgive me if this has already been discussed in the past, but this term "fluking" seems to be rampant on this forum. In my opinion, it's extremely disrespectful to a professional in tennis any sport to imply that a major title was won through illegitimate means or purely due to luck, so I would never say that any tennis player has fluked any of their accomplishments.

That said, I'm curious as to the logic behind this. It seems as though MTF members who use this term frequently classify fluking as a title won due to any of the following:

1. Lack of strong competition en route to the title I suppose the argument here is that if a player wins a title because he faced a disproportionate amount of lower-ranked players, his accomplishment is in some way tainted.

Why this is nonsense: You simply can't blame a player for his draws. Let's take the 2004-2007 period for example. What exactly was Federer supposed to do? Intentionally lose just to give the illusion that there was better competition during that time? He's basically in a lose-lose situation when being judged by those who post this nonsense weak-era drivel. Either he:

a) Plays his best game and wins 17 slams over the course of his career, but is supposedly overrated due to poor competition in a weak era

-or-

b) Plays worse and loses the occasional slam here and there and ends up winning 10 slams, but is not considered nearly as good because he didn't accrue the same number of slams (17).

The same argument can be made for Rafa at RG or Murray's Wimbledon title. Yes, Murray did have a pretty easy draw last year compared to most years and Rafa has gotten favorable draws at times (Lajovic in R4 this year, 4 SHBH at last year's USO including a Robredo/Gasquet QF/SF) but the only alternative is...what...losing? They can only deal with what is dealt to them, so they should be judged accordingly.

2. Injury/Walkover/Retirement to opponent in final

Why this is nonsense: Similar to #1, a player can only be dealt what is handed to them. I'll admit that if a player only has to play 5 opponents to win a slam, it can be brought up as a valid point when debating whether or not he'll ever win another slam in the future, because he's yet to prove he can face 7 and win a major, but the fact remains that he was the last man standing after 2 weeks, hence he deserves the title.

In no way did Wawrinka "fluke" the AO. Nor did Djokovic "fluke" AO 2013 because of Murray's leg issues or AO 2008 because of Fed's mono. And if Djokovic wasn't physically feeling 100% in the RG final this year, it ain't Rafa's fault.

3. One-slam wonder Del Potro, Wawrinka, and Gaudio are frequent victims of this on MTF

Why this is nonsense: 99% of players don't win a slam in their careers. And yet I'd argue that even with a perfect draw and a few lucky retirements/walkovers, 95% of them would still fail to take advantage it and would lose before even reaching the final. There's a reason the Big 4 have claimed all but 2 majors since the beginning of 2005. Do you really think that all 4 of them were at their absolute peaks in all of those slams?

Of course not. Other players had their opportunities to score one big win to join the Del Potros and Wawrinkas of the world (Gonzalez, Baghdatis at AO, Berdych, Roddick, Nalbandian at Wimbledon, Soderling at RG, etc) but they all failed to do so for one reason or another. The point is, winning one slam is an amazing accomplishment. It should never be used as criticism or classified as fluking.

Consider the case of Del Potro. He defeated Nadal and Federer back-to-back. Yes, Nadal played sub-optimally and Federer used very poor strategy in the final, but Del Potro was able to take advantage and he played unbelievably well. Likewise, Djokovic played half as well in the 2014 match with Stan as he did the year prior and Nadal got injured in the final, but Stan still fought through those challenges whereas pretty much anyone else outside the Big 4 would've failed.

4. Weather conditions

Why this is nonsense: I'll be the first to admit that the USO 2012 final was an absolutely abysmal final to watch. Both guys were just trying to keep the ball in play for the first 2 sets, and the quality of tennis was some of the lowest I've ever seen in a GS final. But the conditions are as much a part of the game as technique and strategy. Anyone who plays tennis knows that windy conditions are extremely difficult to navigate throughout the course of a match, and it requires a great deal of skill, patience, and intelligence to win points and not make errors. It makes for really bad TV, no doubt about that, but it's a legitimate match nonetheless.

The same goes for the temperature. It shouldn't matter whether or not its a hot or a cold day for the final of RG. Again, this is a useful predictive tool for how a particular matchup might play out, but saying that Rafa fluked RG 2013 just because the conditions were beginning to really favor Djokovic in the 3rd set before they stopped play is absurd. Nobody knows what would've happened if play had been continuous.

5. Disliking the player

Why this is nonsense: Doesn't really need explaining. If you can't view someone's accomplishments subjectively because you're blinded by fandom, then you ought not to be commenting on slam victories. This should be painfully obvious but I'm sure its the basis for most who accuse others of fluking.

Anything I've missed? Thoughts? Or can we all conclude that fluking is a ridiculously nonsense term with no meaning whatsoever?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
755 Posts
To fluke a title your name has to be Rafael Nadull, you have to win on anywhere but RG, your opponents are either injured or sick, all your bad match ups flame out before playing you and you only play your pigeons.
Then when you play good players they ALWAYS choke( missing match points, hitting the net etc) and play their worst match of the tournament( Djokovic suddenly couldnt return Dulls weak serve after being the best returner on ATP for months:superlol::superlol:)
then have the ATP change courts just to fit your needs:spit::spit:
to see what fluking means just follow Dulls career
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,864 Posts
Great post, OP. There's this ridiculous notion of what players 'deserve', and it's used to write off any tournament victory by a player that the poster doesn't like. Yeah, pretty pathetic. People act like you have to play back-to-back-to-back strongest seeds possible to 'deserve' a tournament, then the next minute they're claiming Del Potro's US Open was a fluke...

It is extremely disrespectful, but hey, remember the forum that we're posting on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
972 Posts
To be Roger Federer 04-06

0 competition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,560 Posts
Fantastic post! I am not even sure if half the people will read it. you already some saying Rafa and Roger. :facepalm:. IMO, in real life there is no fluke/choke/mugs or anything that you hear here. It is up to them to classify whatever they want. And do not expect normal discussion here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,396 Posts
When you play someone in a final against whom you have never won a set in twelve previous meetings, but still manage to win because of your opponent's injury.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,660 Posts
If you call Federer's era(2004 - 07) weak because he was not letting anyone else win slams, you might just well called Nadal's clay era(2005- 2014) weak since no one has won a clay slam other than him aside from 1 slam during this time frame.

Bottom line they were both too good for anyone else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,573 Posts
GREAT POST , i read it with interest.
At least i'm not using this mug term Fluke.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
972 Posts
See dull 2008 FO and Wimby vs MonoFed.
Yes, cause "dull" would never have beaten fully fit Federer on clay, and because their meeting on grass the last year was so dominated by Fed against 21 year old Nadal :worship: .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,311 Posts
To fluke a title your name has to be Rafael Nadull,
I didn't read after that because I knew no matter what else you said, I'd be disappointed so great this statement of your was. You nailed it right on the head. If you look up Nadull on dictionary, it says:

_
Nadull

noun
noun: Nadull; plural noun: Nadullistas

unlikely chance occurrence, especially a surprising piece of luck.
"their triumph was no Nadull"
synonyms: chance, coincidence, accident, twist of fate; More
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,308 Posts
Injury/illness/Walkover in the final is a completely legitimate fluke complaint- You didn't win the most important match of the tournament, you had it handed to you. It's legitimate to say then that tournament isn't necessarily represent of that players abilities.
If you comeback and actually win a similar final, then of course it's not a one off result.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,038 Posts
In my book fluke wins exists but it's not particular player's fault conditions became favourable to him but it was high degree of luck which results in "Accident Results" which generally not occurs in Tennis/sport.

Well If you look at Murray's USO win it was consensus fluke as 2 perspectives:

1) Murray defeated 2 Top Tenners in row in BO5 in tough matches significantly affected by wind. As you said it was worst GS final ever produced or one of the worst at least.
Bottom line is without wind Murray would've lost one match most like against Berdych who was playing well but depleted due to wind as he's flat hitter with high risk involved.
Also I can't recall Murray defeated Two tens in Row in BO5 format. (Just one in Wimbledon victory)

2) Fairly good assumption competition was became all time low (Till it is low) as his generation legend Nadal was out plus Fed knock outed and went to bad patch which is still recovering. Only Man standing was Djokovic which Murray ousted with help of Wind. Normal conditions Murray wouldn't have defeated Djokovic hitting just 30 winners in 5 sets, it was hilarious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,038 Posts
I've seen some posters claiming Stan's AO was fluke but Stan Knocked out 3 upper seeds ( All Top Tens ) including 3 time defending champ, Berdych in very high quality match, Nadal ( injured opponent but generally nobody believes in his injuries as he claimed his Rosol loss was result of injury ), Nadal often get blown by big hitters, Without drama it would be nothing less than beat down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,038 Posts
^^ First one => OK but Raonic is talentless like No1? Seriously? He can hit flat and serve aces!
 

·
Bring it Home
Joined
·
20,320 Posts
^^ First one => OK but Raonic is talentless like No1? Seriously? He can hit flat and serve aces!
Pretty much the only things he can excel at: to serve aces and to hit flat forehands when the balls land in his optimal stroke area.

Look what a clown he's on the grass when he need to adjust and hit lower. ;)
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top