PDA

View Full Version : why the quarters are often no contests


bjk
07-04-2012, 08:44 AM
Anybody else notice that by the time a top seed gets to a quarter, he often steamrolls his opponent? It's as if the perennial mid-ranker, by the time he gets to the quarters, doesn't even bother to give the top seed a real contest. Federer often has longer matches in the second or third round than he does in the quarters. I'm not going to do my own research on this, but you can be pretty sure that by the time somebody outside the top 10 makes it to the quarters, he's already ready to pack it in. Hey, I've gotten this far, no point in putting up a long fight just to lose in the fourth or fifth set. I'll hit some shots, collect my check, and not have to reschedule my flight.

Magnetite
07-04-2012, 09:58 AM
Fed got knocked out of the last two Wimbledons in the quarters.

It usually happens when playing another seed, but upsets still happen. You are right though, if you are saying that random players who get to their first quarter finals of a grand slam, get knocked out easily.

kishnabe
07-04-2012, 10:03 AM
Youhzny was fighting each point....he was screaming with joy with each point won.

Top guys can streamroll any player if they aren't playing the best match of their life!

dudeski
07-04-2012, 10:12 AM
GOAT happens.

ASH1485
07-04-2012, 10:13 AM
I dont think so it is highly competitive, actually if i was attending to any Grand slam i would buy tickets for Quarters

bjk
07-04-2012, 10:44 AM
If you look at the French and the 4th and the quarters, Nadal beat Monaco 2-0-0. Ferrer beat Granollers 3-2-0 and then Nadal beat Ferrer 2-2-1. Djokovic had more trouble with Seppi than with Federer. So to narrow my point down a bit, often the matches in later rounds seem anti-climactic. You expect close matches, but often the players are so worn out later in the tournament that the matches turn into walkovers.

The Bawss
07-04-2012, 11:45 AM
GOAT happens.

Hehehe great post.

El Diablo
07-04-2012, 04:41 PM
Is the OP making a point here by looking only at slam quarters from the past month?? Fail!!!!!

Cup8489
07-04-2012, 04:51 PM
There's only so much you can do when you play RF

TeflonTom
07-04-2012, 05:12 PM
old days u get plenty of upsets in qfs because a lower seed might be a better surface player than higher seed. 10th seed who is good on grass could be big threat to top seed who dont like grass, etc. see sampras gettin dumped out of french, etc. Means that QFs is much less predictable. result is top players expected 2 make QFs. after that, winning the thing was a matter of playin really well. if a top player lost in QFs, it might be disappointing but there no shame to it.

these days if u 10 ranks above a dood, it means u got the wood on him pretty much everywhere. without surface as equaliser, 5-10 ranks different is a mismatch. U expected to win those matches

kinda sad really. just makin the 4th round of a grand slam used to mean u were a serious player, n makin the QFs was huge thing. top 8 in grand slam? much respect. top players take u seriously on this surface in future in case u upset them

nowadays unless u make SFs then ur just leftover cannon fodder who dont rate as a threat 2 any of the contenders

bjk
07-04-2012, 05:18 PM
old days u get plenty of upsets in qfs because a lower seed might be a better surface player than higher seed. 10th seed who is good on grass could be big threat to top seed who dont like grass, etc. see sampras gettin dumped out of french, etc. Means that QFs is much less predictable. result is top players expected 2 make QFs. after that, winning the thing was a matter of playin really well. if a top player lost in QFs, it might be disappointing but there no shame to it.

these days if u 10 ranks above a dood, it means u got the wood on him pretty much everywhere. without surface as equaliser, 5-10 ranks different is a mismatch. U expected to win those matches

kinda sad really. just makin the 4th round of a grand slam used to mean u were a serious player, n makin the QFs was huge thing. top 8 in grand slam? much respect. top players take u seriously on this surface in future in case u upset them

nowadays unless u make SFs then ur just leftover cannon fodder who dont rate as a threat 2 any of the contenders

Is this a parody of Ali G?

roysid
07-04-2012, 05:57 PM
Remember wimbledon 2008 and fed nadal days. Not only quarters even the semos used to be no contests.

El Diablo
07-04-2012, 06:11 PM
To illustrate the silliness of this thread, we can for example look back 10 years to the Wimbledon quarterfinals of 2002 (the year Hewitt beat Nalbandian in the finals). Three of the four quarterfinals went to 5 sets, with the fifth set scores being 6-4,7-5, and 9-7 in the three matches. Hard to find more contested matches than that. (The other quarter was 4 sets). Silly to generalize when you're only looking at data from the current season.

brickner_damage
07-04-2012, 06:13 PM
Is this a parody of Ali G?

Nah I think he's just a regular englishmen, that's the common style of speech. The royal family speech is rare. This slang speech is the common style..

bjk
07-04-2012, 06:22 PM
To illustrate the silliness of this thread, we can for example look back 10 years to the Wimbledon quarterfinals of 2002 (the year Hewitt beat Nalbandian in the finals). Three of the four quarterfinals went to 5 sets, with the fifth set scores being 6-4,7-5, and 9-7 in the three matches. Hard to find more contested matches than that. (The other quarter was 4 sets). Silly to generalize when you're only looking at data from the current season.

Arguing from anecdote against anecdote. Brilliant, el diablo.

Hood_Man
07-04-2012, 06:43 PM
I think fewer upsets make the ones that do happen all the more exciting. It makes for some dull opening weeks if it's only the top guys that you have time to follow, but the payoff when the upset does come is incredible.

TeflonTom
07-04-2012, 06:52 PM
Nah I think he's just a regular englishmen, that's the common style of speech. The royal family speech is rare. This slang speech is the common style..
im american brah