Thiem gentleman please, US Open Day 5 and 6

First topic message reminder :

Today we see Shapovalov promoted to Arthur Ashe stadium and take on Kyle Edmund. Mischa Zverev takes on Isner in what is likely to be a match short on service breaks, whilst Querrey, Cilic and Coric are in action. In the womens' Kvitova, Sharapova, Muguruza and Venus are all in action.

Seeded players at risk today? Anderson, who's up against Coric, if the young Croat can back up his win over Alex Zverev.

Ostapenko up an early break in her match - in this tournament now I'm rooting for both her and Kvitova but feel that Muguruza will win.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

It doesn't take Mystic Meg to make that statement. Heck it has opened up so much in that half there is a thread dedicated to it on here. You could play a game of spot the seed as well as so many have gone.

No, it takes Mystic Craig, who can see into the entirety of Shapo's career (say 15 years?) and say he'll never face a more open draw!

Ostapenko collapses to a 6-3, 6-2 defeat to Kastakina, while delpo is on course for a straight-sets victory over RBA.

Later: Delpo completes a straight-sets victory, while (I should) Coco is a set up against Radwanska.

reckoner wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

It doesn't take Mystic Meg to make that statement. Heck it has opened up so much in that half there is a thread dedicated to it on here. You could play a game of spot the seed as well as so many have gone.

No, it takes Mystic Craig, who can see into the entirety of Shapo's career (say 15 years?) and say he'll never face a more open draw!

Well I challenge you to find the last time a half of a draw at a slam was so bereft of top seeds than is the case now. You will have a long traul back in time - evidence of how rare an occurence it is hence quite safe to say it will be many years begore it happens like this again.

It's rare, but there have been a few slam winners who didn't have to play anyone in the top 10. However, those winners were usually in the top 5 themselves.

A notable one was Agassi's very last Slam title - AO 2003.

The highest player he met (QF's) was Grosjean, ranked 16. None of his other six opponents was even inside the top 30.

Agassi himself was ranked No.2 at the time.

Craig,

The bar you are setting for Shapovalov is far higher than other all time greats had to clear. At 18, even a future all time great, would normally be expected to be losing to many players, not just the top ones. So even with a cleared up draw you would not expect them to be making finals. These are the best results Fed, Rafa and Nole achieved by the time they were Shapovalov's current age:

Fed: never been past round 1 of either a slam or MS1000.

Rafa: slam: R3, MS1000: R4

Nole: slam R3, MS1000: R1

It was not top 10 in the world preventing them from winning titles. They were still struggling to get through journeymen. Even if Shapovalov loses tomorrow, his best results in *both* slams as well as MS1000 will be ahead of anything that any of Fed/Rafa/Nole had done at the same age.

Yet you would be dismissing him if he does not make the final here?

And also, it is not just about the results. Have you seen his game? He would be in with a chance for all time greatness even if he had not beaten Rafa and Tsonga over the last month.

Of course, not all great looking prospects fulfill their promise and we will not know for a while if Shapovalov ever fulfills his. But he is in with as good a chance as anyone in recent memory - win or lose tomorrow.

Fed, for example, in the 06 AO only met one player ranked higher than 25 - Davydenko (5) in the quarters - while winning the tournament. In contrast, this year in Melbourne he had to beat four top 10ers.

lags72 wrote:A notable one was Agassi's very last Slam title - AO 2003.

The highest player he met (QF's) was Grosjean, ranked 16. None of his other six opponents was even inside the top 30.

Agassi himself was ranked No.2 at the time.

One of Sampras's Wimbys, he didn't play anyone in top 16. He was probably No 1 or 2 at the time, but we're going back a bit I suppose. If only socal were here, he'd know Fed's easy draws off by heart.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

...........................................

.......


One of Sampras's Wimbys, he didn't play anyone in top 16. He was probably No 1 or 2 at the time, but we're going back a bit I suppose. If only socal were here, he'd know Fed's easy draws off by heart.

He undoubtedly would.

But he never seemed to remember any easy draws (or 'cakewalks' as I believe they were officially termed in socal-world) for top players not named Federer. Odd that, isn't it .........

And another retirement ...... in the shape of Monfils ; leaving Goffin to progress.

summerblues wrote:Craig,

The bar you are setting for Shapovalov is far higher than other all time greats had to clear.  At 18, even a future all time great, would normally be expected to be losing to many players, not just the top ones.  So even with a cleared up draw you would not expect them to be making finals.  These are the best results Fed, Rafa and Nole achieved by the time they were Shapovalov's current age:

Fed: never been past round 1 of either a slam or MS1000.

Rafa: slam: R3, MS1000: R4

Nole: slam R3, MS1000: R1

It was not top 10 in the world preventing them from winning titles.  They were still struggling to get through journeymen.  Even if Shapovalov loses tomorrow, his best results in *both* slams as well as MS1000 will be ahead of anything that any of Fed/Rafa/Nole had done at the same age.

Yet you would be dismissing him if he does not make the final here?

And also, it is not just about the results.  Have you seen his game?  He would be in with a chance for all time greatness even if he had not beaten Rafa and Tsonga over the last month.

Of course, not all great looking prospects fulfill their promise and we will not know for a while if Shapovalov ever fulfills his.  But he is in with as good a chance as anyone in recent memory - win or lose tomorrow.

No I think, for me personally, I am yet to be convinced. For me to be convinced would be to see him do something really far out then I may jump on the bandwagon.

At heart I am, what you could call a non-conformist. I tend to not follow the public trends in life. At present the trend is that Shap is going to be the next big thing and me being a non-conformist need to be convinced. Nothing personal against the lad though.

Much better match play from Federer. 13-0 h2h vs Lopez F.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Federer will be tested by Lopez but I doubt whether the Spaniard has it between the ears to win. Nadal should have enough to win in four sets against Mayer.

Well called. For both matches

laverfan wrote:Much better match play from Federer.

Yeah, it looks like it was Federer's long lost and useless twin brother that showed up in Rds 1&2.  Just like those two matches were abysmal, this one was superb.  I would even say his best performance since Indian Wells.  I thought Lopez was playing very well, yet Fed always appeared to be in total control, with gears to spare.

Some stats for the 16 remaining players:

Four players yet to drop a set:
Kohlschreiber
Carreno Busta
Anderson
Del Potro

The most sets dropped (among the remaining players) so far is 4 - both Federer and Zverev did it (both started with two five setters).  Federer's sets have been relatively quick, so he has spent less time on court than some other players.

Three players whose matches have taken longest so far:
Lorenzi - 8h 40m
Nadal & Zverev - 8h 24m each

And three quickest ones:
Querrey - 5h 20m
Kohlschreiber - 5h 31m
Carreno Busta - 5h 35m

Agree that Federer's performance was dramatically better (and it sure needed to be .....) compared to first two rounds. That said, one area that seemed below par was his first serve percentage. Haven't seen any 'official' stats - but he was missing a lot, and I suspect would want to improve on that going into the business week.

A much improved Fed, by all accounts. Put him on late at night and he does tend to play ultra-attacking, as if he wants it quickly done and dusted and off to bed.
   Delpo v Thiem could be a cracking 4th rounder. The contrast between those left at the top of the draw and those at the bottom can not have been greater.