If you mean "one-hit wonder" or "flash in the pan", isn't that
stating the obvious at this point in time? After all, he's
been this far only once, and that was a few days ago. 
I'll reserve judgement - after all, we could have
said the same thing about Federer, Nadal or any of the current
top-seeds when they got to their first quarter-finals.
Go through the stats and you might get a more concise picture of
the absurdity in your point.
Gonzalez, Schuettler, Baghdatis, Tsonga were all former
finalists at the Aussie Open and they haven't come anywhere close
to recapturing the sort of form at any Slam since (mind, they
are all easily in their mid to late twenties with one
already in his thirties). So, is it all that hard to
imagine Verdasco - who is making his first SF at a slam
at the tender age of 25 - shouldn't be cast in the same light?
Putting it bluntly, Verdasco (if you have been watching his
tennis over the last few years) isn't even in the league of the
Roddicks, Hewitts or Safins who were consistent quarter and
semi-finalists at the major slams.
Mind, if the precedence of the names I mentioned is anything to
go by, all 4 of them were comfortably top 10 players in their prime
(rather, when they had the run of their careers) and
Verdasco has only just cracked the top 10 (he's 9th now) at 25.
Now, how any parallels you can draw between Verdasco (taking the
argument he hasn't had sufficient time to prove himself) and
Federer/Nadal (Federer had amassed 8 Slams by 25; Nadal has 6 at
22) is simply beyond me...
I've only been to the Oz open, and that's a matter of
convenience since my office has corporate tickets. Still and
all, the mexican waves we were doing last Sunday were fun, and I
love how the crowd goes ape when matches are tight. What's it
like at Winbledon?
The only Slam I haven't been to is the French Open, so for me,
I'd say Aussie and US Open are similar in style in terms of the
fanfare and carnival-like atmosphere, which is great for the fans.
I'd say the Aussie and US Open are probably more contemporary and
would appeal more to fans who are just looking for some fun on a
good day out. They'd probably appeal more to the casual fan
who doesn't know or care as much about the game as simply basking
in the resplendent atmosphere of being there.
That said, I'd say Wimbledon stands out for me simply because of
the whole culture about the place which is very much built in the
tradition of what the game is really about - looking beyond the
all-white attire players are required to don, it certainly smacks
of a certain romanticism in terms of how close fans are to the
action on Centre Court and the respect accorded to the players
and game at large (for starters, you don't frequently get nutcases
shouting in the middle of a point disrupting play in the process),
among other things. Call me a traditionalist if you would, but I
just find it ridiculous for tennis fans to behave in the way you'd
expect of a football crowd.
Perhaps, I'd liken going to Wimbledon to watching football in
England where fans have almost unrivalled access to the action
compared to what is on offer in most parts of continental Europe
where fans actually watch the action miles away behind
fences/barriers.
Incidentally, I was at the Aussie Open the year Baghdatis made
the final (think it was 2006) and some of his matches were
ridiculous looking at how much his crowd (I mean those folks
sitting inside the players' box) got away with - you could be
forgiven for thinking you were actually watching a game of
football, rather than tennis.