Djokovic losing exhibition to retired Kuerten reminds Saint Seppi heroics

Once upon a time some wisdom posters claimed Pete's exhibition win over Fed put all doubts of wea keira to doubts as the match result stamped it. Now will those heroic posters come back to flood the forum with articles of wee keira as the current No.1 "The Next Big Thing", "The Iron Man" lost to retired ex slam champ Guga in the Tennis highest valued match the RIO DE JANEIRO exhibition.

By all those Saint Seppi Rome exhibition logics the current era would soon be deemed as the weaky pedia era of tennis, may be in the future, King of Laziness Bernard Tomic will reverse the trend of just losing ATP matches and not losing exhibitions to Fed/Hewitt or any ex-champs for that sake and tennis wisdom be cast upon 606v2.

I think Stepaneks win over El Mugro does more to prove the point you make.

Anybody winning over Almagro proves nothing.

Exho's likewise.

lydian wrote:Anybody winning over Almagro proves nothing.

Exho's likewise.

Funnily some of Pete's die hard fans always use the Rome exhibition as their main argument to counter Fed's achievement. I just remembered those vague funny threads

invisiblecoolers wrote:

lydian wrote:Anybody winning over Almagro proves nothing.

Exho's likewise.

Funnily some of Pete's die hard fans always use the Rome exhibition as their main argument to counter Fed's achievement. I just remembered those vague funny threads

Federer had adready won the first 2 matches in the series of 3.

Are we really to take an exhib match between the admirable Guga and Djoko seriously? I'm sure if it had been a "proper" match that Djoko would have won easily.

sirfredperry wrote:Are we really to take an exhib match between the admirable Guga and Djoko seriously? I'm sure if it had been a "proper" match that Djoko would have won easily.

I think that's the point - no-one here is taking it seriously, just reflecting how Saint Seppi and a couple of others on the old 606 insisted that Sampras beating Fed in the exho was proof positive that Fed was the weak era/transitional No 1 etc.

Sorry If I misread the earlier comments. By the way, I was lucky enough to be on centre court to see the "real" Sampras-Fed match up at Wimbledon in 2001. It was quite incredible to see the Centre Court get fuller and fuller, with a packed Press box as the drama unfolded.
Forgive me if you 've heard this from me before, but this was a remarkable match in that its significance only became truly apparent about two and half years later - signalling around 2004 the end of one era and the beginning of another.
Normally in sport, you are aware just how important something is right away. But not in this case.

Did you think to yourself "Who's this geek with the silly ponytail? How can Sampras be losing to him?"

Wow fred, it's one thing to see a great match but quite another to not know it at the time!

The one and only professional meeting of the two most successful Slam winners ever. 31 Slam titles between them, including 14 Wimbledons, meeting on Centre Court. Just wow.

Watching that match, it seems to come from another era; all serve/volley, stunning half-volley pick ups (one by Federer at break point down 5-5 final set is breathtaking, given the situation). And the average time between points must be a World record!

sirfredperry wrote:Sorry If I misread the earlier comments. By the way, I was lucky enough to be on centre court to see the "real" Sampras-Fed match up at Wimbledon in 2001. It was quite incredible to see the Centre Court get fuller and fuller, with a packed Press box as the drama unfolded.
Forgive me if you 've heard this from me before, but this was a remarkable match in that its significance only became truly apparent about two and half years later - signalling around 2004 the end of one era and the beginning of another.
Normally in sport, you are aware just how important something is right away. But not in this case.

I completely disagree with this view, most of them who saw the match realized Fed is the next big thing, and many who realized it including me felt Fed letting his talents down when he went down so easy in 2002. The way Fed brought Pete down in 5 sets made the world take notice of him, its difficult to beat a champion in 5 sets by a youngster compared to straight sets thrashing. So many time Phillipoussis brought Sampras down in st.sets but nobody thought he is the next big thing coz thats the manner of the play.

bogbrush wrote:Wow fred, it's one thing to see a great match but quite another to not know it at the time!

The one and only professional meeting of the two most successful Slam winners ever. 31 Slam titles between them, including 14 Wimbledons, meeting on Centre Court. Just wow.

Watching that match, it seems to come from another era; all serve/volley, stunning half-volley pick ups (one by Federer at break point down 5-5 final set is breathtaking, given the situation). And the average time between points must be a World record!

If we remember correctly, the shot you're referring to took place at 4-4 in the 5th - but point taken, it was exquisite.

The serve-and-volley dynamic of pre-2002 Wimbledon was rather formulaic but so is the 'green clay' of the present day. A return to the 2002-2006 grass would provide the ideal surface, whereby offensive play would receive fair reward but good defense and point construction are required.

No surprise that the highest quality tennis seen at the event since 2007 came under the roof, this year, in the SF and F, and no surprise regarding which player won those matches and a 7th championship.