The 2017 US Open

First topic message reminder :

Rather than add on to the Cinci topic, I've started this USO preview. As has been said, this year's NY GS looks unpredictable. As I write we are not even sure if Murray and Fed will play. Rafa has just gone to number one but wasn't great at Montreal or Cinci, but as a two-time USO victor he must not be counted out.
   Assuming Fed recovers from his back problem, he can be expected to go deep. Kyrgios and Dimi are in form. Don't know about Thiem. Cilic, if he plays, may do well. I think if Murray is fit, he could go deep. Lots of may be's, could be's, ifs and buts about this tournament.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Nadalnation wrote:Still don't understand why Murray didn't pull out before the draw was made. He's basically completely unbalanced the draw. He must have known the day before that he wasn't fit. Was to make the path tougher for one of Fedal? Seems a bizarre and selfish call to make it after the draw.

Rafael Nadal has withdrawn from Roland-Garros 2016 with a left wrist injury sustained shortly before his arrival in Paris.

"I have to retire from the tournament because I have a problem in my wrist that I have since couple of weeks," said the nine-time champion. 
"I arrived here with a little bit of pain but I thought it was something I would be able to manage, but every day it got a bit worse.

Was it bizarre and selfish of Rafa to start the FO last year, only to pull out injured, when he knew he was injured before the FO began?

These guys want to play - desperate to play - and they wait as long as they can before they pull out. Would people have preferred it if Murray played one round then pulled out?

And what about Warwinka at Wimby - ""I had problems with the knee since Queen's. It is not something new but something I had in the past. Apparently grass is not the best surface for my knee and I need to figure out what I'm going to do and come back when I have no pain.
"I thought two weeks between Queen's and now would be enough but it wasn't." - was it bizarre and selfish to play one round even though he had little chance of progressing, thus messing up the draw in his section?

Different circumstances.

He's had this injury for months and has been trying to get fit to play since wimbledon. Somehow I don't think the 24 hours after the draw where crucial in the rehabilitation process. Otherwise, why not give himself another couple of days, since the tournament isn't due to start till Monday and now that the draw has been made the only option is for a lucky loser to step in which can happen at the 11th hour.

I expect the sponsors and broadcasters are rightly pissed off. If Federer doesn't make the final the ratings will be abysmal in America and the amount the broadcasters (ESPN and whoever else) can charge for ads will go down.

If Rafa case he clearly thought he was ok to compete but the injury got worse. Murray k ows he can't compete; it's the timing of the withdrawal that's problematic. Ruined the draw and made it incredibly lopsided.

Clearly he was hoping to compete. That's why he was in NYC and practising - which went OK during the week.
There was a 50-50 chance he would be in the same half as Fed, but despite getting a favourable draw, then realised that he could win a few rounds but not the tournament.
It's odd that if he had played a round or two, which he clearly was capable of, then dropped out, that would have been seen as preferable.
It's not Murray's fault Djoko and Warwinka are already out, leaving the USO short of top players.

Murray probably knew his opportunities at landing more majors is under 5%, he's not as talented as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. And Murray can't got all beastmode like Wawrinka. With an easier field in New York, Murray may have felt a could sneak a final major to his cv

JuliusHMarx wrote:Clearly he was hoping to compete. That's why he was in NYC and practising - which went OK during the week.
There was a 50-50 chance he would be in the same half as Fed, but despite getting a favourable draw, then realised that he could win a few rounds but not the tournament.
It's odd that if he had played a round or two, which he clearly was capable of, then dropped out, that would have been seen as preferable.
It's not Murray's fault Djoko and Warwinka are already out, leaving the USO short of top players.

Yes, Murray himself has said that practice was actually going pretty well.

It's very rare that he misses a Slam and he was distraught at the prospect of having to skip this USO - hence the delay in withdrawal, until all realistic hope of being a serious contender had gone.

There's an interesting piece in the Telegraph about Murray's injury troubles during the season - and the tough decisions that many players can face when having to weigh the pros & cons of complex surgery. Worth a read. Probably won't sway the minds of some detractors into cutting him some slack, but you never know !

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2017/08/27/andy-murray-faces-uncertain-future-pulling-us-open-due-ongoing/

Shame no Fedal final, I had a feeling it would be this year, and now that in fact means there will probably never be one at the US Open. Still, either of them especially Nadal is capable of losing early these days but I just had a feeling.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Monfils? He reached the SF last year, he's playing this year right?

Stan (winner), Djoko (finalist) and Kei (the other SFinalist) will be absent this USO.

Yes.

Nadalnation wrote:Still don't understand why Murray didn't pull out before the draw was made. He's basically completely unbalanced the draw. He must have known the day before that he wasn't fit. Was to make the path tougher for one of Fedal? Seems a bizarre and selfish call to make it after the draw.

Presumably you made the same criticism of Rafa in 2009 when he pulled out of Wimbledon a few hours after the draw had been made?

Can anyone explain how the draw has been shifted? Looks like they have just messed with the bottom half.

I think they have made Kohlschrieber seed 33 and Cilic has been bumped to Murrays place in the draw and Querrey to Cilic's place.

Seems a bit unfair on Fed (seed 3) and Goffin (seed 9). Works out very well for Cilic as he gets Murrays gift draw and doesn't have to face Zverev until semi-finals. Works out well for Zverev as he avoids the Cilic QF.

I think they always follow the same pattern if a top 4 seed drops out:

Number 5 seed takes that slot in the draw;
Number 17 seed takes the number 5 spot; and
New number 33 seed takes the 17th seed's position

I guess its to try and minimise the effect on the original draw.

Seems a bit unfair on certain others.

Guest82 wrote:Seems a bit unfair on certain others.

On the face of it that's a fair comment, but there's no other more satisfactory way of dealing with this short of re-staging the draw.  To ensure fairness you need to have the rules written up before the event - but that could create perverse incentives.  Imagine if the rules said that on #1-4 withdrawing after the draw there will be a fresh draw.  The first problem is to set a deadline for that - since any re-draw will involve all players having to re-arrange their schedules.  Then you might have, say, #1&3 who have the same sponsors or are of the same nationality, working in concert with #3 knowing he most likely has to withdraw, but hanging on to see if #1 gets a decent draw, if that happens #3 waits until after the deadline before withdrawing; if not he withdraws to see if #1 has better luck on the re-draw. There'd be a whole speculative industry as to timing of withdrawals and so-on to the detriment of the credibility of the event and the real business of assessing the prospects of those actually playing.

Murray is entitled to think of his own best interests, and I can think of many reasons why he'd be desperate to play if he possibly can.  That said, I still think that last minute withdrawals like this are v. unfortunate and somewhat selfish on the part of a player.  It was pretty obvious from Wimbledon and the subsequent events that this was different to a recent flare-up that might calm down with rest.  I don't think it's necessary or fair to be overly critical of Murray, but as well as being fully entitled to look after his own interests he's a member of the ATP and I think he should have removed his name before the draw took place.  It's got nothing to do with how the draw panned out or the fact that it's Murray not Federer or Nadal - I'd think the same of anyone else in a similar situation.  I cannot remember the precise circumstances of Nadal's 2009 withdrawal except that the time gap between RG and Wimbledon was much shorter, and he withdraw after playing the second of two poor matches at Hurlingham.  I don't (and didn't) think the late withdrawal was ideal, but Nadal had much less opportunity to assess whether he should play a slam on a new surface than Murray, who has been taking advice and practising on hard courts for more than a month.

I agree with barrystar on your take on Rafa at 2009 Wimbledon and Murray at USO now. Rafa really didn't have much time from the FO to Wimbledon to assess his own situation playing on different surfaces; moreover he's the defending champion at Wimbledon, he certainly wanted to try all he could to be ready to play; it's unfortunate his exho match at Hurlingham was played during or just after the draw was held.

I do feel for Murray though, he's trying his best not to miss out on playing at a slam, too bad, he's really not fit enough to play. The timing of the withdrawal was unfortunate.

Anyway, Murray's withdrawal has given the other non big four players the chances of reaching a slam final, or even winning it. At least the finalist only needs to play one of big four, or even none, in the final!

barrystar wrote:

Guest82 wrote:Seems a bit unfair on certain others.

On the face of it that's a fair comment, but there's no other more satisfactory way of dealing with this short of re-staging the draw.  To ensure fairness you need to have the rules written up before the event - but that could create perverse incentives.  Imagine if the rules said that on #1-4 withdrawing after the draw there will be a fresh draw.  The first problem is to set a deadline for that - since any re-draw will involve all players having to re-arrange their schedules.  Then you might have, say, #1&3 who have the same sponsors or are of the same nationality, working in concert with #3 knowing he most likely has to withdraw, but hanging on to see if #1 gets a decent draw, if that happens #3 waits until after the deadline before withdrawing; if not he withdraws to see if #1 has better luck on the re-draw.  There'd be a whole speculative industry as to timing of withdrawals and so-on to the detriment of the credibility of the event and the real business of assessing the prospects of those actually playing.

Murray is entitled to think of his own best interests, and I can think of many reasons why he'd be desperate to play if he possibly can.  That said, I still think that last minute withdrawals like this are v. unfortunate and somewhat selfish on the part of a player.  It was pretty obvious from Wimbledon and the subsequent events that this was different to a recent flare-up that might calm down with rest.  I don't think it's necessary or fair to be overly critical of Murray, but as well as being fully entitled to look after his own interests he's a member of the ATP and I think he should have removed his name before the draw took place.  It's got nothing to do with how the draw panned out or the fact that it's Murray not Federer or Nadal - I'd think the same of anyone else in a similar situation.  I cannot remember the precise circumstances of Nadal's 2009 withdrawal except that the time gap between RG and Wimbledon was much shorter, and he withdraw after playing the second of two poor matches at Hurlingham.  I don't (and didn't) think the late withdrawal was ideal, but Nadal had much less opportunity to assess whether he should play a slam on a new surface than Murray, who has been taking advice and practising on hard courts for more than a month.

Yes I can see the problems it poses and agree that if the rules are already set then no one can really argue them.

Just seems that Querrey is the main beneficiary here, with Fed and Goffin perhaps the main losers.