Topic: How Great Will 2012 Be?

[mav140]

nadal not winning a non-clay tournament in 2 years is an event of zero forward momentum........it means nothing going forward........he lost a bunch of hardcourt finals to djokovic 2.0 and others (murray and fed) chipped in as well beating a beaten man that he was in 2011........

What about the fact that Nadal hasn't won a HC masters for almost three and half years. Does that mean anything?

That's easy - tournament organizers who consistently put the toughest players in Rafa's half, then schedule him for a Thursday morning match after a grueling 3 set Wednesday night 2nd round encounter.  Not to mention the tour organizers, paid under the table by the Swiss federation, schedule the tournaments themselves to coincide with critical matches for the Spanish National Football team.  To top it off, surface experts apply a top-secret 'low bounce' polymer to the courts, which helps to neutralize Rafa's spin.  It's amazing that he's able to compete at all with so many dark sinister plots against him...

Nominated for Post of The Year.

I second the motion!!! Post of the Year!!!!! 

Warning that posts like this will dangerously feed my ego and cause me to post more.  That, and the fact that I have no tolerance for whinetards...

Keep them coming.. I can handle it!

[FreeBird]

I also thought the QF between Nadal and Berdych at the AO was an amazing match. Electrifying stuff.

If you are going to dig into the SF match-ups, might as well add in Djokovic def. Federer @ 2012 RG SF and Nadal def. Federer @ 2012 AO SF. Good times!!

And how awesome would it be if Murray wins the USO and then we can add things like Murray def. X @ 2012 USO F and the other semi final matchups involving him and extend the top 3 to the top 4.

I agree. As was the semifinal between Murray and Djokovic. I wasn't sure if we wanted to dig below the top 4, assuming we can get Murray to win a grandslam, preferably beating 2 of the big three, then we'd have a lot of combinations of wins and losses at the top. Berdych match was great though, as was the Tsonga match in the quarters against Djokovic at RG.

No, we don't want to dig below the Top 3.

Every year produces amazing matches. But this season is remarkable and stands alone for the reasons I've noted. In that respect, it's unique.

I know how Babble likes thread hijacking, so attempting to get back on topic, the nearest I can think of to 3 all-time greats competing near the peak of their skills would be Mac-Connors-Borg in 79-81.  But none of those years contained the evenness we've seen so far this year.  Any other years/eras come to mind?  89 with Lendl/Edberg/Becker maybe?

[monstertruck]

Nope.  This is it.
Possible conclusions?
The rest of the field stinks or this particular trio is head and shoulders above an already solid field?

[Dallas]

They can pull off an upset here or there, but the fact remains that ALL of the grand slams in this era have been won by the big 3 except one (Del Po). So...the rest of the field is just that..."the rest.". I'm even putting Murray in that "rest" even though he has some masters titles. When you've only won 1 set in all the grand slam finals, you are still part of "the rest" of the group.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Start da Game]

Nope.  This is it.
Possible conclusions?
The rest of the field stinks or this particular trio is head and shoulders above an already solid field?

neither thing really........all three clearly benefited from surface homogenization and lack of varied styles........biggest beneficiary surely is federer, closely followed by nadal and then very closely followed by djokovic........that might surprise you but i will explain later how........

[monstertruck]

Nope.  This is it.
Possible conclusions?
The rest of the field stinks or this particular trio is head and shoulders above an already solid field?

neither thing really........all three clearly benefited from surface homogenization and lack of varied styles........biggest beneficiary surely is federer, closely followed by nadal and then very closely followed by djokovic........that might surprise you but i will explain later how........

I don't understand how your post fits into the discussion re: my answer to Freebird's question.

[swish]

Nope.  This is it.
Possible conclusions?
The rest of the field stinks or this particular trio is head and shoulders above an already solid field?

neither thing really........all three clearly benefited from surface homogenization and lack of varied styles........biggest beneficiary surely is federer, closely followed by nadal and then very closely followed by djokovic........that might surprise you but i will explain later how........

Fed would benefit from varying surfaces, he has plenty of tools to use when needed.
 
But I'll wait for the explanation.......................................

[FedFanForever]

Guys, just ignore shankar for your own benefits.

[FreeBird]

They can pull off an upset here or there, but the fact remains that ALL of the grand slams in this era have been won by the big 3 except one (Del Po). So...the rest of the field is just that..."the rest.". I'm even putting Murray in that "rest" even though he has some masters titles. When you've only won 1 set in all the grand slam finals, you are still part of "the rest" of the group.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe I'm being too detailed here, but I put Murray into his own category.  He hasn't won a slam and the others have a min of 5, a big difference.  But he's been in 4 finals, and consistently gets deep in GS's more than anyone below him. And when I watch his game, I see the difference too.  So I put him on his own below the big 3 but significantly above the 'rest'.

[oracle86]

They can pull off an upset here or there, but the fact remains that ALL of the grand slams in this era have been won by the big 3 except one (Del Po). So...the rest of the field is just that..."the rest.". I'm even putting Murray in that "rest" even though he has some masters titles. When you've only won 1 set in all the grand slam finals, you are still part of "the rest" of the group.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe I'm being too detailed here, but I put Murray into his own category.  He hasn't won a slam and the others have a min of 5, a big difference.  But he's been in 4 finals, and consistently gets deep in GS's more than anyone below him. And when I watch his game, I see the difference too.  So I put him on his own below the big 3 but significantly above the 'rest'.

And he has won a lot of Masters 1000 tournaments. He obviously knows how to beat the Top 3. Just hasn't been able to do that consistently at the Slams. If he eventually wins one, he might go on a tear like Djokovic did last year.

[monstertruck]

Nope.  This is it.
Possible conclusions?
The rest of the field stinks or this particular trio is head and shoulders above an already solid field?

neither thing really........all three clearly benefited from surface homogenization and lack of varied styles........biggest beneficiary surely is federer, closely followed by nadal and then very closely followed by djokovic........that might surprise you but i will explain later how........

Fed would benefit from varying surfaces, he has plenty of tools to use when needed.
 
But I'll wait for the explanation.......................................

But that's not relevant to Freebird's question either.
Or is it?