Wimbledon 2014

David Jimerson

David Jimerson

Administrator
Staff member
OK, my prognostication powers have simply been non-existent this go-around. I think I may have been the most wrong about everything that I can ever remember being. Not only were my pre-tournament picks wrong (I figured Radwanska vs. Sharapova in the final, with Radwanska to win, and Murray vs. Nadal in the final, with Murray to repeat), but I've gone the wrong way on every important match, and the second week ended up looking nothing like I thought it would, for both the men and the women.

Which is actually bad news for Barry, because I think Federer is going to win tomorrow. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
I picked Nadal for the final because of his performance at the last two majors, and because, despite his grass shortcomings, I didn't see anyone in the draw who would challenge him until the semifinal, where I expected it to be Wawrinka -- because like you, I didn't expect Federer to be there. Then, I figured Nadal would have the edge. Whether he faced Murray or Djoko, I expected he'd lose in the final, and I figured it to be Murray.

Federer has looked pretty solid, but then so did Murray right up until he wasn't. Still, my gut, which has been wrong all the way through, says he'll take Djoko, who's had a tougher time.

On the women's side, I thought Serena's #1 seed was almost a joke -- it was at least highly questionable. She hasn't done anything this year to suggest she was in top form. But even so, very little happened in that bracket that I thought would, right up to Bouchard being stomped into oblivion by Kvitova. (That was just embarrassing; I almost wished there was a mercy rule.)

Then, of course, the Bryan brothers lost, too.
 
Now, wait -- Serena is a natural #1 seed because she's ranked #1, even though she's done poorly at the majors, but it's a "no way" for Nadal, who's ranked #1, and made the finals of both previous majors, winning one of them?

Who in Nadal's quarter should I have thought would beat him? Certainly not Kyrgios, who's barely off the Challenger circuit, and certainly not in the second week, where Nadal has always found his game. It's the early rounds where he's most vulnerable, when the grass is most a factor.

I dunno; I think most analysts would agree I made very defensible picks. They were, of course, wrong, but that's the way it goes.
 
David Jimerson said:
Well . . . that makes me wrong on every important match. A perfect record!
Click to expand...

What were the sport betting outfits giving as odds? Occasionally I follow euro league soccer and it's amazing how good they are... always makes me wonder if they have inside info or what - but in tennis it seems more volatile.
 
ESPN is owned by ABC, which is in turn owned by Disney. Disney could show at least some of their tennis coverage through their ABC broadcast affiliates, as they have done in the past. But they have chosen not to, at least for the last couple of years.
 
I'm familiar with the seeding process. That's not what I'm talking about. It was about your pumping of Serena but complete dismissal of Nadal, citing this year's performance. Serena's has not been that good. Nadal's has been better than you're allowing. (And note: Serena went down earlier than Nadal did.)

But on the seeding process, the Wimbledon seeding committee saw fit to seed Nadal at #2, meaning, they expected him to reach the final, though they expected him to lose, as did I. The way you're telling it, you'd never know Nadal not only won the three grass titles, two being Wimbledon, he also made the final of three more Wimbledons, which he wouldn't have done if he's as horrific on grass as you're saying.

How many grass court titles, by the way, did Djokovic have? The answer to that is one (which is fewer than three): Wimbledon. Now he has two. How many Wimbledon finals had he made? The answer to that is two (which, similarly, is fewer than five).

I dunno; I looked at Nadal's quarter and saw no one in particular in his way, as long as he could get past the first week wobbles, as he did, and as I expected him to, because he'd want it. Anything can happen at any time, but even the oddsmakers gave him the third-best shot at winning, behind Djoko and Murray, which I agreed with.

I figured Federer would go down to Wawrinka.

Of course, other than Djoko taking the title, everyone was pretty much wrong about everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top