Most Impressive Slam Win Of 2012

As far as slams go 2012 is complete. Each slam trophy has a different name now embossed on the base. But which slam win was the most impressive?

The AO. Nadal beating Federer in what IMO is one of the most underrated matches of the year in one semi. Djokovic beating Murray in the other. Then that epic final that left Djokovic holding the trophy but neither player able to stand.

The FO. This to me is the obvious stand out slam. Nadal playing at his imperious best throughout. Djokovic destroying Federer in the semi. A great match but painful for me to watch. In fact I'm ashamed to say I had to leave it for a while and do something urgent elswhere instead... Then the biggest final in over 40 years (that was how it was described). Djokovic with a grandish slam on the line and Nadal playing for his tennis life.

Wimbledon. Federer surprisingly destroying Djokovicin the sem's. Murray's tears. Federer winning his 17th slam and re-gaining the number 1 position.

The US Open. Nadal not taking part. Federer fizzling out against Berdych. Murray beating Djokovic to "end British slam drought".

This is easy for me the FO was outstanding. Also my favourite semi was the Nadal Federer one in Australia although I enjoyed both the Federer Djokovic semi's.

They were all impressive for different reasons.

AO was impressive for Djokovic being able to come through successive brutal, gruelling five setters against two of the fittest guys out there.

FO was impressive because Rafa had lost the last three slam finals to Djokovic (and quite a few other matches as well) so to be able to turn it around (and in the process become the most decorated clay player of all time) was special.

Wimbledon impressive for Federer winning his 17th slam and taking back the world n°1, all at the grand old age of 57.

US Open impressive for the way Murray after 4 slam final defeats was at last able to break his duck, despite being pegged back to 2 sets all after building an early lead.

I'm actually finding this one quite hard to decide, so I'm going to have to sleep on it.

I vote for the Olympics, Murray was absolutley flawless from start to finish.

The OP seems a little confused as to whether the article is about which slam was the best, which champion was most impressive or which played the best tennis.

Id personally say the most impressive performances were Djokovic in Oz (coming through that superb semi-final against Murray and then eventually overcoming Nadal in the final - albeit aided by a big choke) and Murray at the US (dealing with the wind in the SF and final, handling Djokovic's fightback when a lesser player would have folded).

The best tennis was Federer at Wimbledon who played brilliantly in the SF and final. Wimbledon was also good as we got to see two shot makers in the final. Both players with all court ganes who can play every shot. I'd also say Wimbledon was the best tournament. Rosol's inspired display was the best performance in the first week of any slam, Murray played some inspired matches and the atmosphere, particularly with the roof on was immense.

The French was the worst IMO. It had a lot of history riding on it but Federer played an awful SF, Djokovic was poor throughout and Murray was clearly hampered by his back. All this led to Nadal winning without even having to play his best tennis.

Born Slippy wrote:The OP seems a little confused as to whether the article is about which slam was the best, which champion was most impressive or which played the best tennis.

Id personally say the most impressive performances were Djokovic in Oz (coming through that superb semi-final against Murray and then eventually overcoming Nadal in the final - albeit aided by a big choke) and Murray at the US (dealing with the wind in the SF and final, handling Djokovic's fightback when a lesser player would have folded).

The best tennis was Federer at Wimbledon who played brilliantly in the SF and final. Wimbledon was also good as we got to see two shot makers in the final. Both players with all court ganes who can play every shot. I'd also say Wimbledon was the best tournament. Rosol's inspired display was the best performance in the first week of any slam, Murray played some inspired matches and the atmosphere, particularly with the roof on was immense.

The French was the worst IMO. It had a lot of history riding on it but Federer played an awful SF, Djokovic was poor throughout and Murray was clearly hampered by his back. All this led to Nadal winning without even having to play his best tennis.

for most of this. Wouldn't really say the French was the worst. There were no unimpressive slam wins. Glad Nadal managed to make history and hope he is back fighting fit to extend it in 2013.

Djokovic with a grandish slam on the line and Nadal playing for his tennis life.

A Grandish Slam?

You talk some utter piffel!

And you call yourself a tennis fan and you can't give a Calendar Grand Slam the title of which it rightfully deserves.

Nadal playing for his tennis life? Is he dying?

dont want to sound biased here but I would say Australian Open was the best. Those three matches, Djokovic vs Murray, Fed vs Nadal, Djokovic vs Nadal were amazing matches in oz. Certainly the standout tournament for me.

Murrays win was memorable too but mainly because it was his first win, I didnt think the quality of tennis was great though but a lot of that was down to the annoying windy conditions.

Would love to have seen French open final go into a deciding set, could have been epic

I found wimbledon pretty boring this year

The sharing of the slams this year has suggested that no player has had a stand-out year in 2012 and it's probably the same when it comes to assessing the slams.
If it's performances that you're looking for then there's a case to be made for Murray as he was the only one to win FOR THE FIRST TIME.
For sheer endurability the Djoko AO win was exceptional and Rafa achieved history at the French. Fed's was a great come-back performance at Wimbledon.
As for the quality and excitement of the matches at each GS, there were some incredible 5-setters at the USO and Wimbledon had one of the biggest shocks for years.
The Djoko-Tsonga match at the French was thrilling as was the Djoko-Murray semi at the Australian. I've probably skated over some other good encounters that others might recall.
Due to a number of factors, including Rafa's absence and Fed's resurgence, there seemed to be more unpredictability at this year's slams, even though no one outside the top four emerged a winner.

As has been said, each slam win was impressive for different reasons.

I have gone for the USO due to the historical significance and being Murrays 1st win. The windy conditions made it harder to have a great final in pure tennis terms but I think they did a good job.

Wimbledon was great and Federer was exceptional in the final (sadly for me ).

Djokovic was very impressive at the AO and showed his exceptional endurance.

Nadal made history at the French Open.

A case can be made for each slam win.

It's an interesting question. I'd say that in terms of quality of the tournament, the USO was the stand-out for being poor (hindered by bad weather and worse scheduling) although did have an epic final and the great story of a GB man winning a slam for the first time since the Norman Conquest.

The Aus Open certainly came to a crescendo with the semi-finals and final, although for me the type of tennis on display just wasn't all that entertaining - one dimensional baseline exchanges get boring after the 3rd hour... Still impressive by Djokovic to get through consecutive 5 setters against two guys who pride themselves on athleticism.

Didn't see enough of the French to really make an informed comment, although you have to admire Nadal for unbelievable consistency on clay, particularly at RG.

Which leaves Wimbledon, which obviously we got the best coverage of. Federer's last 2 sets (and preceeding 2 points) in the final was some of the best tennis he's played for 4 or 5 years, which obviously makes it just other-worldly. Odd that he'd struggled so much earlier on, being within 2 points of defeat several times against Benneteau. Murray was excellent through most of the tournament up to half way through the final, and the tournament benefitted from the great early match where Rosol just played out of his skin to beat Nadal.

The best tournament for me was Wimbledon. Cracking drama all the way through. An enormous early shock, some close escapes for the top guys, loads of drama under the roof, and plenty of moments of history (first Brit in a final for 1000 years, Fed breaking his own slam record, becoming number 1 again and ensuring he beats Sampras streak).

In terms of which one was most impressive, now that is a tough one. A first slam is always a huge moment, so Murray has to be in there. but for many of the reasons listed above I think Federer beating 2 of his younger rivals and reaching the summit of the game again at his age was monumental. So he just takes it for me.

None yet all. A major's a major regardless.

My criteria is from point of view of the quality of the challenge faced by the winner. It's pretty close - absent a collapse to the draw all slams are very tough to win.

Aus Open was probably the toughest one to win. All the top four were there fit in good form and capable of winning on that surface, both SF's were hugely competitive and Djoko had to win his way through to the top by being the best.

The remaining three did not quite match that level of challenge but all have their points to recommend:

Fed, the 30-yr-old, winning his 7th Wimbledon having to beat Djoko and Murray as well as battling through 3rd/4th rounds with back trouble

Nadal, winning his 7th RG pretty imperiously, although only really facing one genuine challenger (that is an indicator of his quality of course)

Murray, getting a substantial monkey off his back and beating the best HC player in the world over the last 2 years in the final as well as finding ways to win in the earlier rounds when up against it.

Fed's for me (even though it pains me to say so ). Once again, against Andy he reached into his sublime best and his play for an hour under the roof was indeed reminiscent of 2005

It was also, for me, the best quality final

Born Slippy wrote:The OP seems a little confused as to whether the article is about which slam was the best, which champion was most impressive or which played the best tennis.

Id personally say the most impressive performances were Djokovic in Oz (coming through that superb semi-final against Murray and then eventually overcoming Nadal in the final - albeit aided by a big choke) and Murray at the US (dealing with the wind in the SF and final, handling Djokovic's fightback when a lesser player would have folded).

The best tennis was Federer at Wimbledon who played brilliantly in the SF and final. Wimbledon was also good as we got to see two shot makers in the final. Both players with all court ganes who can play every shot. I'd also say Wimbledon was the best tournament. Rosol's inspired display was the best performance in the first week of any slam, Murray played some inspired matches and the atmosphere, particularly with the roof on was immense.

The French was the worst IMO. It had a lot of history riding on it but Federer played an awful SF, Djokovic was poor throughout and Murray was clearly hampered by his back. All this led to Nadal winning without even having to play his best tennis.

Great summary. The French was indeed poor this year. Murray playing his worst Tennis (at the French) since 2008, still breezed through to the quarters

hawkeye wrote:This is easy for me the FO was outstanding

This would be like me saying that this US Open's final had the best quality Tennis ever seen

I assume that your decision, has nothing to do with Rafa winning

Each was historic for some reason except the Australian so I eliminate that.


So which is the "most" historic? In reverse order;

3. Murrays 1st. Very big, but it's just one player breaking his duck. Bigger for British fans than anywhere else of course (did we consider JMDP in 2009 Earth-shattering?).

2. Nadals 7th French. Incredible, very big and on the very edge of being number 1.

1. Wimbledon, because it was another #7 at a Slam but also #17 and it saw the #1 record broken. It wins just on record breaking countback.


Surprise surprise - I voted for Wimbledon!!

bogbrush wrote:Surprise surprise - I voted for Wimbledon!!

That, we can all understand. After all Murray's Olympic win over the GOAT was a superb match

Just reflecting on the article I note that the OP thought that Djokovic's win over Federer at the French was a great match which the OP enjoyed. My recollection was that Federer was poor for most of that match, with Djokovic not having to really stretch himself.

Im just curious. Did the OP also enjoy the Olympic final, which was similar but probably of slightly higher quality? If not, what was the difference?

Born Slippy wrote:Did the OP also enjoy the Olympic final, which was similar but probably of slightly higher quality? If not, what was the difference?

It starred Andy Murray

Born Slippy wrote:Did the OP also enjoy the Olympic final, which was similar but probably of slightly higher quality? If not, what was the difference?

Olympics isn't a slam, which is what Hawkeye is talking about.

However, let's be really honest here, if Murray hadn't won the Olympics, the that would probably be included in the article.

Talk of the Olympic final leads on to one of the great imponderables. Would Andy - having played so well in the Gold Medal match - have been able to beat Fed in a US semi this year ?
That was the match-up that didn't happen this year. Last year - to the regret of many - we failed to get a Rafa-Nole final at RG. This probably but not definitely was the time when Nadal might just have lost a French final.
I'd have settled for Fed losing in the 2011 French semi and getting the points back by beating Nole in the 2011 US semi.
Ah, the matches that never happened, such as the Rafter-Henman Wimbledon final in 01 and the Fed-Nadal US finals in 2010 and 2011 !

banbrotam wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Did the OP also enjoy the Olympic final, which was similar but probably of slightly higher quality? If not, what was the difference?

It starred Andy Murray

lol

Anyway banb, as a Murray fan you might be interested: my final edition of this series (this year) and Andy Murray is player of the week
https://www.606v2.com/t34909-tennis-weekly-series-edition-9-final-edition

sirfredperry wrote:Talk of the Olympic final leads on to one of the great imponderables. Would Andy - having played so well in the Gold Medal match - have been able to beat Fed in a US semi this year ?
That was the match-up that didn't happen this year. Last year - to the regret of many - we failed to get a Rafa-Nole final at RG. This probably but not definitely was the time when Nadal might just have lost a French final.
I'd have settled for Fed losing in the 2011 French semi and getting the points back by beating Nole in the 2011 US semi.
Ah, the matches that never happened, such as the Rafter-Henman Wimbledon final in 01 and the Fed-Nadal US finals in 2010 and 2011 !

The other imponderable is whether the Wimbledon result would have been the same if it had followed the Olympics (assuming that match itself had the same result) or would Murray have made that easy backhand on break point in the second set and gone on to win. Hopefully, we will get a couple more big Fed-Murray matches over the next 12 months.

B'Slippy. We could also get a Rafa-Murray GS final which would mean all of the top four will have met each other in a Slam title match. Clever clogs among us can probably say whether some of the other "big fours" from earlier eras managed to all meet in finals (only two at a time, of course)

erictheblueuk wrote:I vote for the Olympics, Murray was absolutley flawless from start to finish.

So Murray has 2 slams now?

yep, the Olympics is a "retrospective slam" nowadays, didn't you know?

Great news MfC, means we can now add reputable talents of the game such as Marc Rosset and Nicolas Massu to the Slam Wagon.

does that make Massu the worst player to win a slam? or is that still Thomas Johansson?

My new unbiased rule:
All single Olympic Gold medals= 7 Grand Slam Titles.

It Must Be Love wrote:My new unbiased rule:
All single Olympic Gold medals= 7 Grand Slam Titles.

Good rule.

However losing in the 2nd round of a slam to Lukas Rosol immediately puts an asterisk to your entire career.

erictheblueuk wrote:I vote for the Olympics, Murray was absolutley flawless from start to finish.

Ha ha! Was your 2nd favorite slam Brisbane?

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Djokovic with a grandish slam on the line and Nadal playing for his tennis life.

A Grandish Slam?

You talk some utter piffel!

And you call yourself a tennis fan and you can't give a Calendar Grand Slam the title of which it rightfully deserves.

Nadal playing for his tennis life? Is he dying?

Ok I will call it a "Grand slam". I was only bowing to popular taste by calling it "grandish" anyway. I can remember when Nadal had such an achievement on the line and I suggested it should be called "Grand" I got shouted down.

Be honest if Nadal hadn't won that match how do you think his tennis life would be talked about.

Be honest if Nadal hadn't won that match how do you think his tennis life would be talked about.

As the only player to be injured in 4 straight slam finals, no?

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Djokovic with a grandish slam on the line and Nadal playing for his tennis life.

A Grandish Slam?

You talk some utter piffel!

And you call yourself a tennis fan and you can't give a Calendar Grand Slam the title of which it rightfully deserves.

Nadal playing for his tennis life? Is he dying?

Ok I will call it a "Grand slam". I was only bowing to popular taste by calling it "grandish" anyway. I can remember when Nadal had such an achievement on the line and I suggested it should be called "Grand" I got shouted down.

Be honest if Nadal hadn't won that match how do you think his tennis life would be talked about.

I would've given it the same prestige and respect be it Nadal or anyone else.

I don't think Nadal would've been thought of any less. I think had he lost at RG 2012 he would still wear the same tag his does now which is 'Greatest Clay Courter' given the portion of his Slam success at RG and his record is the greatest on any surface, I still think if he had lost it wouldn't of detracted from it. Roger has 7 at Wimbledon. like Sampras does. I think the reason maybe Nadal's record at RG isn't so much polarised is because Sampras and Federer have achieved success at other Slams despite their favoured surfaces.

If Nadal is forced into retirement I think only then might his achievements be discussed with less intense emotion.

Rafa would probably have to not win three or four RGs in a row for his achievements in the French to even be a little tarnished. Say he'd not won this year, six wins at any GS venue is some feat.

Absolutely. It would take much more than not winning RG 2012 to affect Nadals standing and record adversely.

legendkillarV2 wrote: I think the reason maybe Nadal's record at RG isn't so much polarised is because Sampras and Federer have achieved success at other Slams despite their favoured surfaces.

I have some shocking news for you. Nadal has acheived success at all the slams but Sampras not surprisingly given his limited game could only win on super fast surfaces.

sirfredperry wrote:Rafa would probably have to not win three or four RGs in a row for his achievements in the French to even be a little tarnished. Say he'd not won this year, six wins at any GS venue is some feat.

It wasn't just that Nadal would have lost at RG. If he had lost there he would have lost 4 slam finals in a row to Djokovic. I don't for a minute really believe it would have been tennis death for him but I do think he was playing under immense pressure. The sort of immense pressure that only multi slam winning all time greats can experience. The only player recently who I can think of who has experienced it was Federer at Wimbledon 2008 and the AO in 2009 against Nadal. It was watching how great players react that made these matches memorable.

banbrotam wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:The OP seems a little confused as to whether the article is about which slam was the best, which champion was most impressive or which played the best tennis.

Id personally say the most impressive performances were Djokovic in Oz (coming through that superb semi-final against Murray and then eventually overcoming Nadal in the final - albeit aided by a big choke) and Murray at the US (dealing with the wind in the SF and final, handling Djokovic's fightback when a lesser player would have folded).

The best tennis was Federer at Wimbledon who played brilliantly in the SF and final. Wimbledon was also good as we got to see two shot makers in the final. Both players with all court ganes who can play every shot. I'd also say Wimbledon was the best tournament. Rosol's inspired display was the best performance in the first week of any slam, Murray played some inspired matches and the atmosphere, particularly with the roof on was immense.

The French was the worst IMO. It had a lot of history riding on it but Federer played an awful SF, Djokovic was poor throughout and Murray was clearly hampered by his back. All this led to Nadal winning without even having to play his best tennis.

Great summary. The French was indeed poor this year. Murray playing his worst Tennis (at the French) since 2008, still breezed through to the quarters

More or less the same views, Quality of shot making was at its best in Wimbledon and hence I give it the most enjoyed one title.

However Rafa's feet in FO was pretty impressive, he brushed aside every thorn thrown on his side, the semi-final crushing of Ferrer should have given Ferrer some nightmares [actually Ferrer was the form horse in that tournament next only to Rafa yet suffered the fate]

USO was a relief to see Murray break his duck, but the attrition baseline game killed the match.

AO how ever had the closest competition really anybody could have won it for a bit of luck, however Djoko's never say die attribute prevailed in the end, high quality semi-finals speaks a big plus.

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Surprise surprise - I voted for Wimbledon!!

That, we can all understand. After all Murray's Olympic win over the GOAT was a superb match

True, but I restricted my review to the big events. I could have included others but who wants to hear about Masters or below?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:My new unbiased rule:
All single Olympic Gold medals= 7 Grand Slam Titles.

Good rule.

However losing in the 2nd round of a slam to Lukas Rosol immediately puts an asterisk to your entire career.

Ok 18* is still better than 17* though.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

erictheblueuk wrote:I vote for the Olympics, Murray was absolutley flawless from start to finish.

So Murray has 2 slams now?

If you want a career Golden Slam you gotta have an Olympic Singles Gold Medal.

Even as a Federer fan, the business end of Oz was simply unreal.

bogbrush wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Surprise surprise - I voted for Wimbledon!!

That, we can all understand. After all Murray's Olympic win over the GOAT was a superb match

True, but I restricted my review to the big events. I could have included others but who wants to hear about Masters or below?

Ouch Although it is quite funny to see The Olympics rated alongside the 500 series wins on the ATP website

Nadal played at the more impressive and consisent level. I'll vote for him. Mind you, Federer had to beat Djokovic and Murray while Nadal had Ferrer in the semi. Hm tricky. Now I think of it I'm back on the fence.

Henman Bill wrote:Nadal played at the more impressive and consisent level. I'll vote for him. Mind you, Federer had to beat Djokovic and Murray while Nadal had Ferrer in the semi. Hm tricky. Now I think of it I'm back on the fence.

Nadal would have destroyed Murray, Federer in the FO.
Ferrer is a decent clay-courter, better on clay than Murray I would say.

I think all of them were great in their own way. The most impressive is Federer winning his 17th slam at age 31. Djokovic I think is in his prime and played great to win the AO that would be number 2 because he fought hard in 10 sets and 11 hours. And Murray's well it was his first and it was a great match and fight as well with the whole 70 years since the last champion thing as well. Then you look at Nadal and winning 7 FOs to clearly go down as in my mind the undisputted greatest clay courter of all time and to win his first tournament in many months. But the reason I give the nod to Federer is that you have to consider how well he has maintained as much of his game and body as before and in some ways adding a few new wrinkles to the game plan like being more aggressive on the return.

So to recap I would probably rate them as impressive in different ways and historic in different ways. If I had to choose a rank for these 4 slam wins that are all unusual in that they have some extra significance because of the winnner or the mannner of the victory it woud go like this:

1. Fed
2. Djoko
3. Murray
4. Nadal

Nadal's FO win was historic, sealing a record 7th major.

He also totally destroyed the field- only dropping 1 set which came in the final.

Yes, IMBL it was an impressive record but everyone kind of expected it for many years. I mean only the Nadal haters kept up the facade that Nadal wasn't the greatest clay courter ever. So everyone knew this record would fall to him eventually. It isn't that Nadal's win isn't great it really was. but because this year with what the top 4 has accomplished in recent years and what was going on with the other 3 guys it might put Nadal's win as #4. That win would be the signature slam win in many other years. But while it is true that every slam is significant there seems to have been a lot of extra drama significance to all the slam wins this year. Nadal scored a lot of goals in a year that everyone scored a lot of goals.