Australian Open 2017 final vs Australian Open 2012 final (which final match was better)?

[Shank Volley]

1st of all the many of the posters here all have a history of never ever giving credit no matter how good a match was in terms of quality if it featured Djokovic or Djokodal together. You can see by some of the comments here calling it boring, slow, grindfest etc. I dont make similar comments in the opposite direction. 2nd of all, I often give credit to Federer and Fedal matches.

3rd of all Im not saying its impossible people could genuinely think the Fedal 17 match was higher quality, but it sure is surprising if there is no bias.

Consider AO 12 was Djokodal in their athletic peaks. 17 was Fedal over the hill having a resurgence for sure...but far from their peak. Nadal especially in terms of movement.

Yes I'm sure your view is entirely free of bias.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Yes I'm sure your view is entirely free of bias.

Again, you refuse to address my substantive points and just throw back a childish "no YOURE biased". Youre wrong, chump. The sooner you admit it, the better you'll feel.

 

[Shank Volley]

Again, you refuse to address my substantive points and just throw back a childish "no YOURE biased". Youre wrong, chump. The sooner you admit it, the better you'll feel.

I'm not wrong. You're not wrong. It's all subjective. It depends whether you prefer attacking tennis or defensive tennis. Simple as that. Are you really calling me childish for labelling you biased, when you called fans of 2017 biased first?

There are people who would rather watch one flashy winner than three forced errors, and there are people who would be on the edge of their seat waiting to see who blinks first in a brutal, grinding (that's not always a negative word with me) rally. I'm not sure why you can't see that? The only explanation to me is that you prefer Djokovic and Nadal's style of play, which I certainly can't fault you on.

Let's try to refrain from childish insults, please. You're biased. I'm biased. Everybody here is biased. There was a guy called Objectivity who was more biased than everyone else here combined. I don't dislike defensive tennis. I prefer aggressive tennis. It's just what I like watching. So for me, 2017 was a more enjoyable match that better suits my tastes.

The fact that you think enjoyment of tennis is so black and white, right and wrong, is pretty laughable. As are your defensive, condescending remarks.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I'm not wrong. You're not wrong. It's all subjective. It depends whether you prefer attacking tennis or defensive tennis. Simple as that. Are you really calling me childish for labelling you biased, when you called fans of 2017 biased first?

There are people who would rather watch one flashy winner than three forced errors, and there are people who would be on the edge of their seat waiting to see who blinks first in a brutal, grinding (that's not always a negative word with me) rally. I'm not sure why you can't see that? The only explanation to me is that you prefer Djokovic and Nadal's style of play, which I certainly can't fault you on.

Let's try to refrain from childish insults, please. You're biased. I'm biased. Everybody here is biased. There was a guy called Objectivity who was more biased than everyone else here combined. I don't dislike defensive tennis. I prefer aggressive tennis. It's just what I like watching. So for me, 2017 was a more enjoyable match that better suits my tastes.

The fact that you think enjoyment of tennis is so black and white, right and wrong, is pretty laughable. As are your defensive, condescending remarks.

But the whole debate wasn't between which style was more enjoyable. Nor was it about which match was more dramatic or important or whatever. I freely said that I understand if people preferred the 2017 match. I would agree it had more on the line and was more dramatic.

The question was better and the argument became about the quality of the two matches. The 2012 match seemed---at least to me--to be unequivocally of a higher quality. That is all.

Compounding this issue was the fact that many people gave reasons like the posts I quoted---saying they'd NEVER vote for 2012 because of the time taken between points, or the grinding style, or the players involved vs the players in 2017 (Fed vs no Fed etc). There is also a history of that here, and it is frustrating.

This is coming from someone who thinks the 2008 Wimbledon Final was the most dramatic match ever, but concedes the 2007 final (Which Federer won) was higher quality. I might be biased, but I try to not making sweeping statements attacking a style of tennis or player as a justification for not considering a certain match to be of high quality in comparison to another (even though the 1st is generally regarded as such , and the 2nd was more on drama etc than level of play.)

 

[Deleted member 716271]

if you want to be technical, Nadal's athletic peak was nowhere near 2012 (it was 05 clay season-09 AO). But the overall point is true.

Fair enough!

 

[Luckydog]

Yes, but Federer didn't do anything wrong in the 2009 final. The final set was 6-2. It's not like Federer was close and choked.

In that final,Fed only had 48% 1st serve in.But Nadal still had to defeat Fed in 5 sets in his absolutely highest form ever on slow HC. It tells something. 2017 final was a little different that fed was 35 years old. If Fed were 28 years old,the 2017 final would finish in 3 sets ,in which Nadal would never have any chance to win.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

OMG they were both painful hahaha - is there a 2009 option

To answer the question though, they were both such quality matches. I think 2012 just edges 2017 as a match though because it was all out war for 6 odd hours. It was incredible and tiring to watch - although Rafa lost I still remember having tremendous amounts of respect for both competitors.

2017 was a quality match but only really got going when Federer turned up the level in the 5th set.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I cited specific examples. Guess you dont want to address that.

All those examples apply to you just as well as they do to him.

What a biased joke.

LOL, another projection.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

The 2012 match was a better one where we got to see both players at their best together many times. In the 2017 final, we only got to see that in the fifth set. While I definitely enjoy the style of play in the 2017 final, for me, there's no denying that the 2012 was of higher quality generally.

However, the stakes, the drama and the epic comeback in the fifth set of 2017 were stunning.

But as I said, 2012 -> 2017 judging by the quality only. Which one I prefer? 2017

 

[Mr Feeny]

Again, you refuse to address my substantive points and just throw back a childish "no YOURE biased". Youre wrong, chump. The sooner you admit it, the better you'll feel.

"You're wrong. CHUMP"

Nothing better than an Ad-hominem to illustrate his point and shatter your credibility, eh?

 

[Mr Feeny]

I was a guy called Objectivity who was more biased than everyone else here combined. I don't dislike defensive tennis. I prefer aggressive tennis. It's just what I like watching. So for me, 2017 was a more enjoyable match that better suits my tastes.

The fact that you think enjoyment of tennis is so black and white, right and wrong, is pretty laughable. As are your defensive, condescending remarks.

Unbelievable, isn't it?

 

[Mr Feeny]

The 2012 match seemed---at least to me--to be unequivocally of a higher quality.

You nailed it. To you.

The 2017 final is considered the greater match by the masses. It's alright to have your own opinion. Just don't resort to childish insults just because the majority disagree with your view.

 

[SinjinCooper]

I don't like people automatically calling every match between Djokovic and Nadal/Murray a snoozefest, because that's not the case.

It's absolutely the case.

 

[Supertegwyn]

The problem with 2017 is that none of the sets really featured both of them playing at their best, and none of them were particularly close (except maybe the fifth).

Whenever Federer dominated Nadal faded and vice versa.

Tbh I think 2012 and 2017 are both heavily overrated. 2012 is too much of a slugfest and 2017 was too erratic.

 

[mavsman149]

Honestly I loved both matches, it's probably a tie to me with an ever so slight bias to 2012. Even as a Novak fan seeing Fed win after almost 5 years was pretty cool, and that last set was some incredible tennis. I don't really understand why everyone keeps saying history was on the line at that tournament though, all that happened was that Fed extended his slam count lead and had Nadal won, he would've still been behind Federer.

 

[Charlie]

It's absolutely the case.

No it's not. You made it clear that Federer is the only guy you like or even respect, but that's only your problem.

 

[Daniel Johnson]

The 2012 AO was 90 minutes of tennis and 4.5 hours of ball bouncing, toweling off and time wasting between points. That is literally the truth, Cahill did a graphic on that at IW 2012 when commentating and looking back on the AO.

So 2017 wins hands down and not just because Fed won it, because at least one player was using 15 seconds between serves instead of 32.

Ahh, Fed fans tip their hand. Speed of play is their criteria for determining the GOAT

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[TMF]

Lol, the 2012 final and quite comfortably. Those saying this year's final was more epic and dramatic have very short memories.

The problem with 2012 final is that the match was SO long because both Nadal and Nole took too long time between points.

 

[maratha_warrior]

Bolded no.1: it was 5:53 h. Never got anywhere near 6.5 hours. If it had got there, the players would have needed 2 stretchers to be carried out of there.

Bolded no.2: Nadal was no.9. Sorry, I just had to put it out there.

Ohh yeah I checked again .. its 5.53 hrs
my bad..
Secondly, i already mentioned Nadal was ranked ranked sumwhere between rank 7 to 10 ..