Spaghetti's 10 Best Matches of 2012.

First topic message reminder :

The votes are in. Here are the matches of 2012 as decided by the Main Event Lads, and presented by Spaghetti Hans. We were looking for two key attributes - quality of play, and significance of action -and we feel this list is definitive. We welcome your thoughts.

10. Del Potro def. Roddick. U.S Open. 4th Round.
A sentimental choice to kick off proceedings. Watching the American Patriot tear up as he faced serve on Arthur Ashe for the final time was a moment of great emotion. The end of an era for many followers of the game who had grown up believing that Roddick would be a multiple slam champion until he ran into The Greatest The Game Has Ever Seen in Roger Federer. This match - an entertaining 4 set slobberknocker - was a fitting finale to an impressive career.

9. Murray def. Baghdatis. Wimbledon. 3rd Round.
This one was all about the atmosphere, as the dark closed around Centre Court and the clock ticked closer to 11pm. Murray wasn't at his freewheeling best by any means and the jovial Baghdatis was in no mood to pass up his moment under the hot lights of SW19. Yet as Murray realized the prospect of the match running on into the 2nd Week was a genuine possibility, his shot-making kicked into action, and he wrapped up the game in double-quick time.

8. Del Potro def. Djokovic. Olympic Bronze Medal Match.
Del Potro on a good day is one of the finest sights in tennis. And today was a good day. Djokovic, still smarting from his loss to Murray, was not at his best but rallied early in set two. Del Potro's defeat in the Semi's to Federer was no surprise to him or us. He knew from the moment the draw was released that Bronze was his, and his nation's, best hope of a medal, and the Argentine flag-bearer unleashed his ferocious, patriotic intensity on court. He was a worthy and popular winner.

7. Federer def. Murray. World Tour Finals Semi.
You knew it wouldn't be long before King Roger graced this list with his presence. Young pretender versus Living Legend. A routine 2 sets match was elevated to the heights by Federer's virtuoso shotmaking. The first set was a titanic tussle, the second a formality - but Federer was sublime throughout. The match also achieved infamy as the London crowd booed their 'Home Town Hero' - but Murray should not be overly concerned - no player, Olympic Gold-Medallist or otherwise, can match the adulation bestowed upon 8-time Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award winner and 10-Time ATP Fans' Favourite, Roger Federer.

6. Murray def. Djokovic. U.S Open Final.
You will start to see a trend emerging of Djokovic losing the most entertaining matches - it seems the Djoker rarely has the last laugh. With impartial hindsight this was not a great U.S Open final by any means - cruelly stripped of Federer's majestry - it was a high-powered match of hit and hopes with few points that really caught fire. Rarely has a 5 set match done so little. Yet it places highly on our list for its significance: a first Murray Slam - the end of British Red Top derision, and a long-delayed and well-deserved place in the history books.

5. Federer def. Djokovic. Wimbledon Semi.
For the first time in a long long while The Swiss Maestro entered a match on Centre Court without the burden of being the favourite - naysayers and fools believed that his time was close to the end - instead he branded his racket like a conductors baton and gave us pure Mozart. The lush lawns of Wimbledon have long been his fortress, and on this day he rolled back the years and produced a performance worthy of royalty. It is said that the watching Rod Laver wept a single tear as he realized that he would never again be called the best - he had seen enough today to make him realize that he had been greedy trying desperately to cling on to his GOAT badge - Federer was majestic: a 7th Wimbledon and Inner Peace were just one match away...

4. Verdasco def. Nadal. Madrid Masters. 3rd Round.
Long the master of the red muck of Roland Garros, could Nadal deliver on the blue seas of Madrid? To the great surprise of his Mallorcan fisherman brethren it soon became clear he couldn't. Despite a 0-13 record against The Clay Potter, Verdasco refused to succumb again - time and time again he fought counter-punching with deep, incisive attacking forehands. Rallying from 2 breaks down in the final set, Verdasco began to out-manoeuvre Nadal, and clinched an unlikely victory. Nadal's belief was shaken - he quickly threatened to never return to the unfamiliar blue clay - but the damage was done. A marker had been laid down - even here in Nadal's home country - attacking tennis could yet prevail.

3. Djokovic def. Murray. Australian Open Semi.
And so Djokovic finally wins one of these - and lucky for him it's the best of the lot. The match had it all - shot-making of the very highest order, unbearable tension, and the feeling that we, as tennis fans, were on the cusp of something new. With Nadal perennially injured and Federer sure to one day lay down his racket and walk off into a golden sunset, Djokovic v Murray is a match-up that we can expect to see in finals for years to come. This was by no means the first time they'd met, but it was the first time they'd met as genuinely world-class players - and the quality of tennis we saw that day was a testament to that fact. A fantastic advert for the game with only one downside: Djokovic put it all on the line against Murray, and so by the time of the Final he was completely spent. Despite sleepwalking to a routine victory, Djokovic v Nadal underwhelmed, and as the Melbourne crowd's minds continuously cast themselves back to the exhilarating semi, they roused themselves from their stupor only for the occasional chants of 'booooring... booooring....'

2. Federer def. Murray. Wimbledon Final.
Britain expected. The anticipation was at fever pitch, the papers could talk of nothing else - was today the day that years of hurt would be put to bed? Was today the day Roger Federer would claim his record-equalling 7th Wimbledon title? They were not disappointed. Murray played his part by taking the tight first set, and the 2nd could have gone either way. There were moments of brilliance, and two of the most respected attacking exponents of the game proved that they are unafraid to get dirty and fight as one 20 minute game attested to. But once the rain fell and the roof closed, it was the Swiss Maestro's grass-court wizardry that took over. The match was won in four - the crowd rose in ovation, bowing to their master - beneficiaries of greatness. This was destiny, this was vindication. Murray would have other chances (and who knew quite how soon he would take one?), but this mattered more to Federer, and to the game he loved. A year which had begun with doubts and recrimination had turned to gold. Federer was a 17-time Grand Slam Champion, and had risen to number one in the world once again.

1. Rosol def. Nadal. Wimbledon. 2nd Round.
Who could argue? In terms of earth-shattering impact and bone-rattling tennis this was the match that topped them all. French Open Champion Rafael Nadal against world number 100, Lukas Rosol - a counterpunch here, a moonball there, and surely Nadal would win this in 3 right? How wrong we all were. Rosol was electric - the period of sustained hitting in set five left jaws on floors, and proponents of the defensive game running for the hills. It is the intensity and fervour in Rosol's eyes that lives longest in the memory. It was as if he knew that he held the candle for attacking tennis in his sweaty palms, and he would do all he could to make sure Centre Court caught fire. Forehand after frightening forehand came crashing down on the Mallorcan fisherman, and there was nothing he could do. Oh those heady days! It was like living through a fever dream, or seeing a man speak in tongues. Rosol promptly fell in straight sets to Kohlschreiber in the next round, and Nadal was never seen again. No match did more to change the landscape of men's tennis in 2012.

Every tennis forum needs its metaphorical red and blue corners ... dull places without them. SH puts out some mildly "trollish" comments (dont we all at times...?) but I'm of the belief they are firmly tongue in cheek to stimulate discussion (which they do!).

If all posters on here put as much effort into new posts/threads as SH clearly did with this OP then we'd have plenty of things to talk about!!!

Sniping at OPs without adding much to the forum in terms of new discussion points is somewhat akin to the Cantona seagulls and trawlers scenario...i.e. idle spectators waiting for scraps to feed off.

I may not agree with SH but forums needs guy like him or else its a puerile environment we end up with (or Mary Whitehouse to phrase TP).

time please wrote:

Replace some of your favourite players with politicians and you might see it is a gentle satire - not a character assasination!

lol maybe one day Rafa will be on 'I'm a celebrity get me out of here'!

Then you obviously dont know his reputation... Whatever he gets thrown at him he deserves and then some and thats mvho

Haddie-nuff wrote:Then you obviously dont know his reputation... Whatever he gets thrown at him he deserves and then some and thats mvho

are you deecoco by the way?

NO

I've come to this thread rather late and with no prior knowledge of the OP.

Although this wouldn't be my own 'Ten Best' selection, I do feel that a fair bit of thought has gone into it, as reflected in the quality of writing. Undoubtedly the article's content has been informed by an unashamedly biased (but at least honest) perspective ; but then who can claim not to be biased, to one degree or another ...??

Must say I'm rather surprised at the way in which some of those who disagree with the selection have chosen to personalise their comments rather than enter into constructive criticism.

As for the specific charges of wumming & trolling .... well there were some pretty nasty WUM's on the old 606 who could never have put together an article remotely like this because they were far too busy slagging off other posters and players with a level of vitriol that indicated more interest in damaging the forum than any love for the sport itself.

lags
Believe what you will.. my opinion is based on what I know not what I think. This person is not a WUM too clever for that.. but he is a troll. take it or leave it. Ill just sit back and watch Come back Duggietoo

OK, h-n. I hear what you say.

The comments I made were based on this thread alone, and - for now at least - I stand by them.

I may well find myself revising my opinion, subject to what I see from the poster concerned in the future.

lags72 wrote:I've come to this thread rather late and with no prior knowledge of the OP.

Although this wouldn't be my own 'Ten Best' selection, I do feel that a fair bit of thought has gone into it, as reflected in the quality of writing. Undoubtedly the article's content has been informed by an unashamedly biased (but at least honest) perspective ; but then who can claim not to be biased, to one degree or another ...??

Must say I'm rather surprised at the way in which some of those who disagree with the selection have chosen to personalise their comments rather than enter into constructive criticism.

As for the specific charges of wumming & trolling .... well there were some pretty nasty WUM's on the old 606 who could never have put together an article remotely like this because they were far too busy slagging off other posters and players with a level of vitriol that indicated more interest in damaging the forum than any love for the sport itself.

Well said

I see the similar way, the article is well written , yes its biased a bit but everybody have their opinion and nothing wrong in telecasting it as long as its done in civilized manner for which I got no complaints for this article.

Personally I feel Murray played better in Olympics Semi against Djoko than in USO finals, level of Olympic semis were better than the finals.

Despite thinking that a large chunk of what Spaghetti-Hans writes is nonsense, it is nevertheless well-written nonsense and I enjoy reading it. If I don't enjoy reading it, well, I don't have to.

I still can't quite fathom the purpose of being a collective though... it puts me in mind of the Borg (I mean the fictional alien race, not the headband-touting Swede!).

Really chaps, what is that all about?

HM - We have written as a collective from our very inception. We find it gives us a sense of balance and impartiality that is simply impossible to fully achieve as a solo author. Ultimately we can sleep safe in the knowledge that we haven't said anything rash or untrue because each comment has been carefully considered, meticulously crafted, and often voted upon by several of our members. We each come from different fields, backgrounds, and professions - but are bound together by our love of both the game and unbiased investigative sports journalism.

To our friends, we say thank you for your kind words of support. Coming from the pleasant pastures of Ye Olde 606, we confess that we find this Brave New World of 606v2 to be a sometimes cruel and lonely place for a simple collective such as ours - so we are glad to see that our articles have brought such joy.

To our foes - we understand that we speak some hard truths, and that our style of delivery is not to the taste of every layman. But ask yourself this: If you are spreading the gospel of our patron, Roger Federer - a gospel of attacking intent and scintillating inside-out forehands - then why would you whisper when you could instead shout it from the rooftops accompanied by a chorus of angel's trumpets as we do?

What we promise you all is this: We will strive to educate; we will seek to entertain - yet above all else we will provoke a debate. Finally, we will always work for the greater good of these fine forums.

Like us or hate us, the facts are these: this post alone has been read well over 1000 times in little under 72 hours - it is a literary juggernaut; a behemoth of reasoned argument. We are, and always will be, box office... Ladies and Gentlemen, Spaghetti Hans is Main Event.

Lags check your inbox, I am sending you some past article of SH which you may find interesting.

ok, rest assured I shall read & digest .....

It Must Be Love wrote:Lags check your inbox, I am sending you some past article of SH which you may find interesting.

It Must Be Love,

Could you kindly message us these past articles from our portfolio as well? In this Era of Transparency, we'd like to see exactly which articles you're referring to.

I've sent them for Lags for him to form an unbiased opinion, I'm not posting them here.

It Must Be Love wrote:I've sent them for Lags for him to form an unbiased opinion, I'm not posting them here.

Just send them to our inbox in the form of a private message. No need to post them here, after all, WikiLeaks 2.0 would serve only to harm The Brave New World of 606v2.

Or at the very least, name the titles of our masterpieces so we can search our archives for them ourselves.

It Must Be Love wrote:I've sent them for Lags for him to form an unbiased opinion, I'm not posting them here.

Dear God - please save us. This kind of response is stifling the forum and making it a very uncongenial place to post, I can't imagine anyone alighting on this place from Twitter or some other social media and thinking 'oh goody, this looks like fun'!
I thought your post was great SH - I couldn't give a rat's a*** what you have posted before but I thoroughly enjoyed your amusing contribution.

Are you angry or something Time Please lol

I liked this article, in terms of it's style of writing, it was well structured too. However at some points I didn't agree with it, eg I didn't the the AO final was 'routine' for Djokovic.

SH once posted a really interesting article on the old 606, which I thought Lags may want to see, and form his opinion whether he agrees with it.
Edit: btw Check your inbox TP

Yes but IMBL I can kind of see where TP is coming from. You do this quite often where you'll say out in the open forum "PM for you"...which makes other people wonder what you're saying about them or others behind close doors.

If you're going to PM why advertise you're doing it...after all the P stands for private...the other person knows they have a PM when they log on or a window pops up whilst logged on. Why say it out in the open? Given you must know how PM works it strikes me as divisive and tell-tale that you're advertising PMs out in the open - and it potentially puts the recipient of your PM on the backfoot before they've even received it. Just PM lags72 or whoever and have done with it, we dont need to know.

I've enjoyed reading SH's posts, even as a Nadal fan. We have to separate satire from vindictive sniping...this forum could do with a little levity from time to time.

lydian wrote: the guy who turned around a deficit against Djokovic from 0-7 to 3-0

Would love to know how the pattern of their results might continue. My take on it has been that this 3-0 turnaround had far more to do with Nole's level having dropped than with anything that Rafa was doing.

Nadal won't probably play at the top level again SB, so you don't have to worry about that.

lydian wrote:Yes but IMBL I can kind of see where TP is coming from. You do this quite often where you'll say out in the open forum "PM for you"...which makes other people wonder what you're saying about them or others behind close doors.

If you're going to PM why advertise you're doing it...after all the P stands for private...the other person knows they have a PM when they log on or a window pops up whilst logged on. Why say it out in the open? Given you must know how PM works it strikes me as divisive and tell-tale that you're advertising PMs out in the open - and it potentially puts the recipient of your PM on the backfoot before they've even received it. Just PM lags72 or whoever and have done with it, we dont need to know.

I've enjoyed reading SH's posts, even as a Nadal fan. We have to separate satire from vindictive sniping...this forum could do with a little levity from time to time.

OK Lydian, noted for the future

Agree with those who defend SH. The initial article as well as SH's follow-up posts are well-written with a good sense of humor. So what if some of it may be a bit over-the-top? I think this forum is sorely missing exactly this kind of contributions.

Way back in the mists of time before 606 was called 606, there were some somewhat WUMy posters there with a very good sense of humor; their posts were generally not offensive towards individual posters and one could glean from occasional dropped hints that they were not taking themselves all that seriously. SH may not quite fall into the WUM category, but in some ways "they" remind me of those old posters back then, and I am glad to see their style of posts on this forum.

To Rafa's fans that are unhappy about SH I would say this: Back in the old days most of the WUMy posts were directed at Federer. If Nadal is now the most common target, you should know he is doing something right, so take it in stride and enjoy the posts - the forum should not take itself too seriously.

summerblues wrote:
To Rafa's fans that are unhappy about SH I would say this: Back in the old days most of the WUMy posts were directed at Federer. If Nadal is now the most common target, you should know he is doing something right, so take it in stride and enjoy the posts - the forum should not take itself too seriously.

Yes SB, I agree with you, good point

It Must Be Love wrote:Nadal won't probably play at the top level again SB, so you don't have to worry about that.

Why do you say that, it is not clear to me at all? The biggest question mark in my mind is the lengh of his injury break, players have in the past had difficulties to come back from breaks that long. However, if he can get himself in good shape - and it is not obvious to me that he cannot - then with his competitiveness he may be able to get back to top form quicker than some other guys.

summerblues wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Nadal won't probably play at the top level again SB, so you don't have to worry about that.

Why do you say that, it is not clear to me at all? The biggest question mark in my mind is the lengh of his injury break, players have in the past had difficulties to come back from breaks that long. However, if he can get himself in good shape - and it is not obvious to me that he cannot - then with his competitiveness he may be able to get back to top form quicker than some other guys.

I really hope so, i really do.

Let's see.

Yes SB, the Djokovic-Nadal axis is going to be the most interesting match-up for 2013 (IMO). I agree that Novak wasnt 100% for MC with his grandad dying but Rome and RG were different affairs. Nadal had found an approach that worked better against Novak, in particular working to his FH and playing with more angle, Djokovic loves regulation balls up and down the court - Nadal was able stop this better than 2011 and stopped playing as many short balls which in partic. killed him last year.

Some argue of course that the 7-0 the other way was aided by Nadal being off-par for some of the year. On balance, their levels were very close up til Nadal had to withdraw this year. My impression is that Novak has been missing Nadal, and this was clear after he won WTF and commented on Nadal.

I think Nadal had a loss of confidence the longer the year went on, but in their first couple of meetings rafa was playing fantastic, especially miami.

lydian wrote:Yes SB, the Djokovic-Nadal axis is going to be the most interesting match-up for 2013 (IMO). I agree that Novak wasnt 100% for MC with his grandad dying but Rome and RG were different affairs. Nadal had found an approach that worked better against Novak, in particular working to his FH and playing with more angle, Djokovic loves regulation balls up and down the court - Nadal was able stop this better than 2011 and stopped playing as many short balls which in partic. killed him last year.

Some argue of course that the 7-0 the other way was aided by Nadal being off-par for some of the year. On balance, their levels were very close up til Nadal had to withdraw this year. My impression is that Novak has been missing Nadal, and this was clear after he won WTF and commented on Nadal.

Yes, I know we see this differently. You do make reasonable points and for all I know you may be right but my take on things is decidedly different. I think throughout spring and really all the way through the Olympics Novak played a few notches below where he could be playing.

I also do not see Nadal as being below par in 2011. I think it only looked that way because Novak was beating him. If you look at Nadal's matches against everyone other than Novak in spring 2011 (January through RG) vs 2012, you will see that Rafa actually did better in 2011 (especially if you take the view that he was injured at AO 2011 and discount his performance there on account of that).

Anyway, I think reasonable observers can have significantly divergent views on the Rafa-Nole dynamics, which makes it so much more interesting to follow going forward, so hopefully Rafa does manage to get back to his best.

I agree with you that this match up may be the most interesting one for 2013, but I do think that some of the other ones can become pretty good too. Specifically, I think Andy has a good chance of really mixing it up with the big boys this time around, so his match-ups against both Nole and Rafa can become quite intriguing.

I agree Rafa was on good form for a fair bit of 2011 but come RG he was in a dark place and was almost muttering self-absorbedly through interviews. At the time his relationship with Toni had degenerated to almost breaking point and his parents marriage was again the focus of his attention. Don't forget Rafa himself in his autobiography says it was his parents marriage breakdown that caused him to miss Wimb09 not his knees. He didn't have the stomach to want to battle. He looked that way to me for much of RG11 but somehow kept it together. His mind didn't "look" right for the rest of the year - his level in Wimb11 final was atrocious, then lost a match from set and break up against journeyman Dodig in next event. He just wasn't quite right, any Nadal fan could see that. I take on board he had lost to Djokovic a fair few times and that was probably in the mix too but it was more than that...we saw how he was able to bounce back in 2012 once his off-court situation with family inc. Toni had settled down. Nadal is very sensitive to these things given the close knit and macho way he was brought up within the Nadal clan.

On Novak we are more aligned. I've said on here that his level had dropped after AO, particularly after RG too. He also had some personal stuff going on and try as we might, we can't ignore these guys are humans too and at the level they play it only takes 1-2% loss of concentration for tipping points to shift in the other direction.

Re: match-ups, yes plenty of interesting battles and scenarios ahead. I still don't find Djokovic-Murray that interesting a spectacle though. Not because Rafa or Roger aren't present, just that their styles are too convergent and similar for me. I like contrasts. Given the unique nature of Rafa and Roger's games you're always going to get contrasts with whoever they play. That said, I find Murray-Federer matches interesting, followed by Murray-Nadal. It will be interesting to see how Murray rises to Nadal now given his very poor record with Rafa to date. Murray must be at advantage now with his rise to peak form and Nadal AWOL for 6 months.

Other than that I follow the "juniors" closely...Nishikori, Raonic, Goffin and now Janowicz. Who is going to be the 22 and under player who first gets to a slam semi or final? Maybe Jerzy from nowhere...I still prefer to watch Goffin out of them all as feel he has the most all court skill but fear his build is too slight in these slow surface days to make a top10 impression. We'll see. In the meantime Nadal coming back is where the tour is at right now for many tennis followers with the question of can he, and how long will it take for him to return to top level playing, I.e. slam finals?

It Must Be Love wrote:Are you angry or something Time Please lol

I liked this article, in terms of it's style of writing, it was well structured too. However at some points I didn't agree with it, eg I didn't the the AO final was 'routine' for Djokovic.

SH once posted a really interesting article on the old 606, which I thought Lags may want to see, and form his opinion whether he agrees with it.
Edit: btw Check your inbox TP

I have checked my inbox, but didn't find another pm from you only one from Julius who thinks I've been 'a bit harsh' on you - is that the pm you are referring to, or did you forget to press send for your own personal admonition? I would like to make it known in the public forum that I think it is perfectly clear I am taking issue with your post, not with you personally.

I think there is a principle at stake which is that posts should be judged on their merit not on the poster's previous history of which I know nothing. In other words, should I be swayed by an opinion from posters I don't know from Adam or should I judge on what I see - now what seems the fair and sane thing to do in this situation

time please wrote:

or did you forget to press send for your own personal admonition?

I did send you a PM, but then deleted it a few minutes later. You can actually do that, if you send a PM you can delete it before it's read by going to 'outbox' and there is a delete and edit function. I apologise, I should have re-edited my comment about the PM (I forgot about that).

I did not know Julius had sent you a PM

time please wrote:
I would like to make it known in the public forum that I think it is perfectly clear I am taking issue with your post, not with you personally.

Oh ok, I thought the 'general idiocy' line was directed towards me because I don't like some of SH's posts.

time please wrote:
I think there is a principle at stake which is that posts should be judged on their merit not on the poster's previous history of which I know nothing. In other words, should I be swayed by an opinion from posters I don't know from Adam or should I judge on what I see - now what seems the fair and sane thing to do in this situation

I disagree, I think we should keep someone's past history in consideration when reading their posts.
For example if a historian in the 1940's shows he is very pro Communism/Socialism; and in the 1950's writes a glowing report of Mao's reign in China... then surely we should take his past actions into consideration when doing analysis (for example you know that he may have an agenda to be pro-Communism.)

haha v2 compared to contemporary world history

Some good matches here, well definitely the ones I've seen and a great read

What did you make of the Hewitt Djokovic match at the AO this year. I thought it was a fascinating contest.

It Must Be Love wrote:

time please wrote:

or did you forget to press send for your own personal admonition?

I did send you a PM, but then deleted it a few minutes later. You can actually do that, if you send a PM you can delete it before it's read by going to 'outbox' and there is a delete and edit function. I apologise, I should have re-edited my comment about the PM (I forgot about that).

I did not know Julius had sent you a PM

time please wrote:
I would like to make it known in the public forum that I think it is perfectly clear I am taking issue with your post, not with you personally.

Oh ok, I thought the 'general idiocy' line was directed towards me because I don't like some of SH's posts.

time please wrote:
I think there is a principle at stake which is that posts should be judged on their merit not on the poster's previous history of which I know nothing. In other words, should I be swayed by an opinion from posters I don't know from Adam or should I judge on what I see - now what seems the fair and sane thing to do in this situation

I disagree, I think we should keep someone's past history in consideration when reading their posts.
For example if a historian in the 1940's shows he is very pro Communism/Socialism; and in the 1950's writes a glowing report of Mao's reign in China... then surely we should take his past actions into consideration when doing analysis (for example you know that he may have an agenda to be pro-Communism.)

Really forgive me for saying so IMBL but I really think that your last paragraph is quite pompous (note to all, I did not say that IBML is pompous, but that the sentiment expressed is!!!)

I think you take this forum too seriously sometimes - it is not, as pointed out to you by IC in another thread, a place for learned research nor is it a club for select members, though one could be forgiven for thinking this is what some posters would like in their heart of hearts. It is a discussion forum and it is good to have a bit of light relief from all the 'analysis'.

If I can just add my tuppence worth, posters who so confidently present their opinion as fact do tend to wind others up. I get the impression SH is aware of this - perhaps even why he/they purport to be a collective. That's not to say this is not an interesting article & generated good discussion.

So to this I would add go easy on criticism of the moderators. It's not an easy job & they will be on their guard when a new poster likes this arrives. They have the best of intentions to maintain the finely balanced equilibrium on the board.

Anyway to the Nadal fans, I would say if SH posts some ridiculous opinion of Nadal, just laugh at the delusion, as should Murray fans at hawkeye's ridiculous dismissal of Murray. Well, it gives me a laugh anyway.

Thank you for your tuppence worth Yvonne..Yes when Nadal is back I know what to expect

As to the best matches, I agree on Nadal-Rosol actually, in that circumstance you could appreciate tennis that didn't involve long rallies. That match helped elevate Federer-Benneteau & Murray-Baghdatis as a series of enthralling night matches - I'm not so sure they would have been so dramatic individually.

Of the Olympics, I thought Murray-Djokovic was the best quality - and provided something as bit different from their hard court match-ups.

I demand an end to this witch hunt.

It will end today.. or I shall be forced to use the universal emancipator powers of which I am the last guardian.

Freeeeeeeeeedooooooooooooom.



emancipator

On V2 you cannot use such words as DEMAND ep.. not democratic.

time please wrote:
It is a discussion forum and it is good to have a bit of light relief from all the 'analysis'.

When did I say differently TP. You're the one who keeps analysing everything I say with a microscope.
My point was separate, that we can take past history into consideration. For example if Hawkeye says Murray is worse than Ferrer at tennis, we can take into consideration that in the past she has shown herself to be anti-Murray, so we can't agree with it blindly.
[/quote]

time please wrote:
as pointed out to you by IC in another thread

OH cmon TP, that was totally different.
I never told IC that v2 should become just an analysis thread or anything, but I did tell IC to research his comments before accusing Djokovic of being a cheat (vs Del Potro in WTF).
Djokovic didn't win the point, but IC said Djokovic did and hence was a cheat. I told IC to research his comments before making such allegations and posted a link showing Djokovic losing the point. A similar incident happened with IC accusing Nadal of not shaking hands with Berdych (before I posted a link showing he was mistaken), and recently with the Celiac disease same thing happened.

lydian wrote:we saw how he was able to bounce back in 2012 once his off-court situation with family inc. Toni had settled down.

You focused on what you see as Nadal's poor 2011 performances post RG. However, by then he was already 0-4 vs Novak. Also, I would not say he bounced back in any surprising way in 2012. If I am counting correctly, start of the year through RG Nadal was:

44-2 vs players other than Novak and 0-4 vs Novak in 2011 and
37-4 vs players other than Novak and 3-1 vs Novak in 2012.

Other than his improved results against Novak, if anything, he slipped a bit in 2012. On the other hand, Novak was definitely having worse 2012 against both Rafa and everyone else. So just judging from that, it would seem more natural to suspect Novak's weaker performances as the main reason for the difference.

To me, this is consistent with what I subjectively perceived when watching them - unlike you I did not see anything in Rafa's game that I would expect to have troubled 2011 Nole.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree, sit back, and hope we will get to see how the story unfolds in 2013.

lydian wrote:Other than that I follow the "juniors" closely...Nishikori, Raonic, Goffin and now Janowicz.

Overall, I find them all terribly disappointing. I am not all that sure that slowed-down conditions alone should prevent young players from performing better - maybe the very young ones but by 21-22 they should be able to do far better than what they are doing now. Rafa, Nole, and Andy all did much better and conditions have not changed that dramatically since then. I am not at all sure where to look for the next big thing - presumably some of the youngsters would ultimately be reaching for #1 spot, but which one of the current crop can get there? I am not really sold on Raonic, Goffin's physique may be a questionmark (plus even without that, is he really that good?), Janowicz looked good in one tournament - seems too little for someone who is almost 22. Mhmmm...

It Must Be Love wrote:

time please wrote:
It is a discussion forum and it is good to have a bit of light relief from all the 'analysis'.

When did I say differently TP. You're the one who keeps analysing everything I say with a microscope.
My point was separate, that we can take past history into consideration. For example if Hawkeye says Murray is worse than Ferrer at tennis, we can take into consideration that in the past she has shown herself to be anti-Murray, so we can't agree with it blindly.

Actually I was directly quoting with the word 'analysis' and the word 'research'. My attention span is too short, I'm afraid, to lend that much seriousness to a forum that for me is meant to be fun.

time please wrote:
as pointed out to you by IC in another thread

OH cmon TP, that was totally different.
I never told IC that v2 should become just an analysis thread or anything, but I did tell IC to research his comments before accusing Djokovic of being a cheat (vs Del Potro in WTF).
Djokovic didn't win the point, but IC said Djokovic did and hence was a cheat. I told IC to research his comments before making such allegations and posted a link showing Djokovic losing the point. A similar incident happened with IC accusing Nadal of not shaking hands with Berdych (before I posted a link showing he was mistaken), and recently with the Celiac disease same thing happened.

'another poorly researched article' was the phrase used which might have been a bit OTT - one could just say 'I think you're wrong - thought Del Potro won the point'. Bandying words like 'allegations' around makes it sound such a big deal instead of a poster making a mistake.

Anyway, I expect we are both quite bored with each other now and I've effectively hijacked a very funny and good original post.

lydian wrote:I agree Rafa was on good form for a fair bit of 2011 but come RG he was in a dark place and was almost muttering self-absorbedly through interviews. At the time his relationship with Toni had degenerated to almost breaking point and his parents marriage was again the focus of his attention. Don't forget Rafa himself in his autobiography says it was his parents marriage breakdown that caused him to miss Wimb09 not his knees. He didn't have the stomach to want to battle. He looked that way to me for much of RG11 but somehow kept it together. His mind didn't "look" right for the rest of the year - his level in Wimb11 final was atrocious, then lost a match from set and break up against journeyman Dodig in next event. He just wasn't quite right, any Nadal fan could see that. I take on board he had lost to Djokovic a fair few times and that was probably in the mix too but it was more than that...we saw how he was able to bounce back in 2012 once his off-court situation with family inc. Toni had settled down. Nadal is very sensitive to these things given the close knit and macho way he was brought up within the Nadal clan.

I think Djokovic was tremendous in 2011 and showed true grit and nothing should detract from that. Having said that, Nadal made some strange comments during RG 2011 talking about 'feeling as if he had been playing tennis for a 100 years' and he just didn't show up for much of the Wimbledon final. He is clearly a most competitive animal, but I wonder if the way he has been driven, manufactured into a champion with single minded purpose by Toni, with the collusion of his parents, isn't almost guaranteeing that he will walk away at some point if only to enable him to have a life. But then again, it might all be publicity - wicked Uncle Toni and his maltreatment of his nephew helped maintain the allure and the mystery far better than if the autobiography had been a straightforward, chronological list of triumphs and disasters and I think the Nadal team has, until recently maybe, always delivered brilliant PR in managing their brilliant charge.

One thing I am sure of is that when he comes back, he will be a force almost immediately - I don't believe he has the stomach anymore for less.