US Open 2021

First topic message reminder :

The draw has been made and, as has been mentioned in the previous topic, Murray has the short straw this time - Tsitsipas in the first round.

Cameron Norrie has a tricky first round, against Spain youngster Alcaraz. Djoko gets a possible semi against Zverev, while Tsitsipas is in Medvedev's half. Medvedev doesn't have the easiest of starts - first up Gasquet and then, possibly, former US winner Cilic.

For me, Djoko is still favourite but not overwhelming favourite. We don't quite know what shape his body is in and he's had no real preparation. Zverev, Medvedev and Tsitsipas will all fancy their chances. I would be surprised if the winner came from anyone outside these aforesaid foursome.

Others with a chance? Rublev probably leads the next-favourite field. I'm not a big Berrettini fan but I suppose a case can be made out for him (message to his opponents - just stick it on his backhand).

For once of late, there appears to be a clear favourite in the women - Barty. Osaka, though, has twice won the US and if she can get her head sorted out she could do well. There are so many GS champs lining up that, as usual, it's mighty hard to predict how the women's tournament will pan out.

Jeff Navarro wrote:Medical time out for a cut knee on break point. Ridiculous

I am glad that it is not the Roman times in Circus. .

From Appendix E of second-amended-itf-world-tennis-tour-regulations-september-2021.pdf

f. Bleeding
If a player is bleeding, the Chair Umpire must stop play as soon as possible, and the Sports Physiotherapist must be called to the court by the Chair Umpire for evaluation and treatment. The Sports Physiotherapist, in conjunction with the Tournament Doctor if appropriate, will evaluate the source of the bleeding, and will request a Medical Time-Out for treatment if necessary.
If requested by the Sports Physiotherapist and/or Tournament Doctor, the ITF Supervisor or Chair Umpire may allow up to a total of five (5) minutes to assure control of the bleeding.
If blood has spilled onto the court or its immediate vicinity, play must not resume until the blood spill has been cleaned appropriately.

I am still stunned, brilliant performance from Raducanu, the composure she showed in closing the match out was amazing for someone so young.

Fernandez was fighting hard to the end, bodes well for her future along with the big wins she pulled off en route to final.

Felt like I was watching Djokovic (Raducanu) vs. Nadal (Fernandez) there in terms of game style. Fernandez's forehand in particular appears very similar to Nadal's to me, particularly when she goes down the line. It was a fantastic match and hopefully we see the likes of these two, Gauff, and Swiatek establish strong rivalries to give us a bit of a narrative on the WTA side.

Must be slightly galling for Djokovic that Federer is the one always mentioned. Rightly so of course.

Quite a match to complete a wonderful tournament for Raducanu ... she was pushed hard at a few points but to be honest I thought she looked the better player throughout the match Not by much , mind - but just a little steadier at most of the key moments.
Fernandez is a terrific fighter : I thought she actually upped her game most when she was battling to hold some of those service games from behind. She may also have been a little more tired from having to go to three sets a few times on the run up to this match.

No taking away from Emma though. She won , as she has all the way through , in straight sets ; and in some style. Magnificent performance

Wonderful match. Very high standard from both. Incredible, considering their relative youth and inexperience.

Raducanu earns 2040 ranking points. The most any player has ever received from one tournament, due to her run in qualifying.

If she wins it again next year, she'll actually lose ranking points!

Well, we live to see another British GS champion - with the winner coming from the most unlikely source.

Amid Emma's many records, is there anyone who has won a Slam having only played one previous GS tournament? Is there anyone who has won a Slam having played so few main-tour events?

This is huge not only for British tennis but for the women's tour. The WTA will be delighted to have this kind of poster girl doing all their ambassadorial work for them.

Must say that each match Emma has played I feared she would go out. But she had the answer to all her opponents.

Staggering to think of a qualifier winning it, anyway. BUT NOT TO DROP A SET AS WELL? Mindboggling.

Nothing she will do in a, hopefully, long career will equal this. On the plus side, she can set her sights on more GS success and a place at the top of the rankings.

Didn’t watch the match, very little interest in women’s tennis I have to admit. Fair play to Emma, good win for her. From what I heard the Fernandez serve is very dodgy. It’s such a liability in tennis if you don’t have a good serve, it’s like a very good golfer that can’t putt. It’s so costly to your overall game.

Looking forward to the match tonight. Hope it’s a great match. Will be interesting to see where the crowd support because for a change Djokovic had majority of the crowd support in the semi final against Zverev. Courier also commented on that, big swing in support for Novak vs previous rounds

"....AND IN OTHER TENNIS NEWS."

Sometimes overshadowed by Rog and Rafa, Novak now faces being upstaged by an 18-year-old qualifier!

In pure news terms, Emma winning will be a bigger story than Djoko achieving the Calendar Slam.

In pure tennis terms, the Calendar Slam is a kind of Holy Grail. That is, almost unattainable. Somebody doing it is a massive story.

Will Djoko do it? I think so. It may be tough against Medvedev but Djoko can do tough.

But you can just hear the news bulletins headlines tomorrow. It will be, inevitably in Britain and understandably elsewhere, all about Emma. Then you will hear: "And in other tennis news, world number one Novak Djokovic has achieved the tennis Grand Slam...

In Britain maybe, in other parts of the world more people are focused on men’s tennis. It gets far higher ratings and crowds than women’s tennis.

Certainly among people I know 90% of tennis talk relates to men’s game

I've similarly dismissed women's tennis for years Slasher, but honestly it was a fantastic level of tennis and you missed out not watching it. I will be rooting for both of the young ladies from here on out, guts, talent, and class.

laverfan wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Of course Laver fans, and perhaps our own laverfan, will point out that Rod did the Calendar Slam twice - a feat probably even beyond Novak's ability or endurance.

That was also seven years apart - 1962 and 1969. I am glad to see Djokovic attempting it at least once. It is also tough to compare the current attempt with Laver's achievements. There is a Don Budge record with six-in-a-row that Djokovic can also attempt, if he achieves the CYGS.

Zverev played a very poor fifth set.

Hope Djoko achieves the calender slam tonight - if he pulls it off, it's a remarkable feat that elevates him above Federer and Nadal in my opinion.

Have to admit, i cannot fathom why some people are comparing his CYGS with Laver's in 1969, frankly it irks me that they are even mentioned together as it only serves to undermine Djoko's achivement, should he win tonight.

Yes, on paper, Laver achieved the CYGS in 69, however it bears no comparison to the current slam format. Laver played in an era that is light years removed from the modern game - three of the slams were played on grass!

Appreciate that Laver can only play on what surfaces are available at the time, however it puts a huge asterix against his achievement and whilst he is in the history books as the first man to achieve the CYGS in the open era, it really was the dawn of the open era and in my opinion he gets rather more credit for his accomplishment than he is due.

Certainly, should Djoko win tonight, i would hope his achievement will be recognised as the only true mens CYGS in the MODERN open era as coupling it with Laver's feat greatly diminishes the enormity of what Djoko is on the verge of accomplishing.

Also worth considering that if Djokovic does pull it off, his opponents in the four finals have a combined zero grand slam titles.

Just watched the whole of the Emma final. Excellent, quality match, full of terrific shots and gutsy play.

You can see why Leylah did so well in the previous matches, although I thought she didn't serve that well today.

Emma, though, certainly looks the real deal. It was astonishing that she managed to play so aggressively yet commit so few UEs.
She constantly played the right shot at the right time.

I particularly liked the way that she wrong-footed Leylah at times. She was dusting the lines and peppering the baseline.

There was also some real mentally-strong play at times, no more so than in the dramatic final game. Leylah was obviously disappointed that play had to stop when Emma cut her leg, but she may have used a lot of nervous energy up by her long complaints.

You have to think that inexperience sometimes helps in these situations. Maybe Emma was just able to play with exuberance and freedom of youth and not think about what she was close to accomplishing.

As for the future for Emma, the sky's the limit. Attractive person, attractive personality, young, bright, smiley....and pretty good at tennis.

Soul Requiem wrote:Also worth considering that if Djokovic does pull it off, his opponents in the four finals have a combined zero grand slam titles.

Federer has won 6 grand slam titles against players who had no grand slam titles at the time he played them in the final - does that also diminish his achievements?

Phillipousus - Wimbledon 2003
Baghdatis - Australian 2006
Gonzalez - Australian 2006
Djokovic - US 2007
Murray - US 2008
Soderling - French 2009

4 of the above players never won a slam title in there entire career.

B.A. BARACUS wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Also worth considering that if Djokovic does pull it off, his opponents in the four finals have a combined zero grand slam titles.

Federer has won 6 grand slam titles against players who had no grand slam titles at the time he played them in the final - does that also diminish his achievements?

Phillipousus - Wimbledon 2003
Baghdatis - Australian 2006
Gonzalez - Australian 2006
Djokovic - US 2007
Murray - US 2008
Soderling - French 2009

4 of the above players never won a slam title in there entire career.

When we're talking about the calendar slam it matters, it just further highlights the current standard isn't great.

Stephen Hendry won 7 world snooker titles - 4 of them against Jimmy White, who never won one, should that mean his titles are any less worthy of acclaim

Considering the big 3 have dominated mens tennis for the past 15 years or so, would Novak achieving the CYGS be any greater if he's beaten an over the hill Federer or Nadal in any of the 4 finals - i think not.

Also worth bearing in mind that he beat Nadal in the semi final at the French.

Also, what's not to say that when Djoko retires, Berretini, Medvedez, Tsipisas or Zverev wont go on and win multiple slams between them

Also worth considering Djokovic beat the world number 2 in oz open final, the greatest clay courter of all time at the french open followed by top 5 player in final.

By that logic none of the recent women’s champions have achieved much because most finals are against players that have won sod all slams

Soul Requiem wrote:Also worth considering that if Djokovic does pull it off, his opponents in the four finals have a combined zero grand slam titles.

What has this got to do with the women's game?

Rafa once said he though a Calendar Slam was not possible. Bit ironic, really, in that the reason his main rivals Rog and Novak were not able to do it was that Rafa had the French wrapped up.

Federer, in particular, was a French-win away from a Calendar Slam in 06 and 07. Even when he and Djoko finally won at RG, they couldn't win the necessary other Slams that year.

So if Djoko does do it tonight, it will be his s-f win over Rafa in Paris this year that will have sealed it for him.

Comparisons are always difficult but Laver's achievement in 69 was a worthy one, IMHO.

The era had just gone Open so all the top professionals were playing. Laver, admittedly the best of the lot, still had to contend with the likes of Hoad, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Gimeno, Newcombe, Roche and Ashe.

B.A. BARACUS wrote:

laverfan wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Of course Laver fans, and perhaps our own laverfan, will point out that Rod did the Calendar Slam twice - a feat probably even beyond Novak's ability or endurance.

That was also seven years apart - 1962 and 1969. I am glad to see Djokovic attempting it at least once. It is also tough to compare the current attempt with Laver's achievements. There is a Don Budge record with six-in-a-row that Djokovic can also attempt, if he achieves the CYGS.

Zverev played a very poor fifth set.

Have to admit, i cannot fathom why some people are comparing his CYGS with Laver's in 1969, frankly it irks me that they are even mentioned together as it only serves to undermine Djoko's achivement, should he win tonight.

Yes, on paper, Laver achieved the CYGS in 69, however it bears no comparison to the current slam format. Laver played in an era that is light years removed from the modern game - three of the slams were played on grass!

Appreciate that Laver can only play on what surfaces are available at the time, however it puts a huge asterix against his achievement and whilst he is in the history books as the first man to achieve the CYGS in the open era, it really was the dawn of the open era and in my opinion he gets rather more credit for his accomplishment than he is due.

Certainly, should Djoko win tonight, i would hope his achievement will be recognised as the only true mens CYGS in the MODERN open era as coupling it with Laver's feat greatly diminishes the enormity of what Djoko is on the verge of accomplishing.

Such arguments have been used many-a-time to diminish Laver's achievements. Just a gentle reminder that Laver was playing in the Professional tour (US/French/Wembley) and beating Professionals on surfaces that no one plays on today - Wood. Many of the players of Open Era players also played in such tournaments after they were recognized by tennis authorities. Take a look at the players list of U.S. Pro Tennis Championships.

Then focus on him beating Medvedev in final of oz and Nadal / Tsitsipas back to back in French open. You stayed quiet on that. You are right though all three of them are not worthy of a slam final.

If you really want to make this interesting, list off who Djokovic beat in his 20 grand slam finals and compare them to Federers final opponents. Also let’s discuss who Djokovic beat in his 4 slams in a row win in 2015/2016 that no other modern men’s player has achieved, yes that’s right he beat federer in Wimbledon final, federer in us open final, Andy Murray in oz open final and Andy Murray in french open final. All of these multiple grand slam champions but no doubt that wasn’t impressive either.

You may really dislike Djokovic but constantly bashing him is just bizarre. He is beating all the top players at every slam based on current rankings but you are right they must all be useless



quote="Soul Requiem"]What has this got to do with the women's game?[/quote]

Whether Laver completed the CYGS in an easier era is not the point. He did it...that's all that counts. His accomplishments shouldn't be dismissed or down graded in any way just because it was done years ago. The CYGS is hard to do now, and it was hard to do back then. If it was so easy to do back in the 60's then why didn't more players do it?

While I'm here. let me say congratulations to Emma Raducanu...great win! Let's hope she doesn't crumble under the pressure like Osaka seems to have done.

Given that there's a good chance that Djoko will pull off the Calendar Slam tonight, just where would this place the 2021 US Open in a list of really good Slam events?

You would have had a fairy-tale like women's story plus the culmination of the impossible dream of a men's Calendar Slam.

Total contrast with Wimbledon 2021 which was about the worst (Covid/lack of grass-court practice?) I could remember.

Atila wrote:Whether Laver completed the CYGS in an easier era is not the point. He did it...that's all that counts. His accomplishments shouldn't be dismissed or down graded in any way just because it was done years ago. The CYGS is hard to do now, and it was hard to do back then. If it was so easy to do back in the 60's then why didn't more players do it?

While I'm here. let me say congratulations to Emma Raducanu...great win! Let's hope she doesn't crumble under the pressure like Osaka seems to have done.

FWIW, i'm not dismissing or downgrading Laver's accomplishment - my point is it doesn't and shouldn't be compared in terms of significance or greatness to Djoko's should he win tonight.

That's not a slight against Laver, it's just an opinion based on the fact that, by any measure the modern tennis game is infinitely superior to the tennis being played in the 60's.

Joe davis is a legendary snooker player, yet nobody claims that his achievement of 15 world titles is equal to Ronnie o' sullivans haul of 6 titles or Hendry's 7.

In fact Hendry's 7 world titles is considered the benchmark in the modern game, Joe Davis may have the record but it is largely dismissed as the game was in it's infancy at the time and was some years away from evolving into the modern snooker game.

Same principle applies to the CYGS imo - yes Laver has the record of having acheived it before in the open era but that version of the open era is vastly different than the current one, the fact that 3 of the slams won by laver were played on grass in 69, only serves to illustrate that point.

I don't think it is much of a point against Laver that 3 of the slams were on grass. Today we also have a reasonably homogeneous era with a similar game being played on any surface, and no serve volley skills required. If anything the French Open-Wimbledon double was considered much more difficult in years gone by than it is today.

This three slams on grass argument gets wheeled out as if it´s a slam dunk, which it really isn´t. I think it´s just a way of trying to dismiss the years gone by and focus only on the modern era.

Here is an interesting article:
https://www.tennisnow.com/News/2021/September-2021/How-Rod-Laver-Won-the-First-Open-Grand-Slam-in-196.aspx

What we can say about Laver 1969 is that he wasn´t completely dominating. He had many tight 5 set matches in the slams. His story was more of a hollywood movie than it was an impressive feat of domination, and he lost many matches in other tournaments that year.

Despite all the hyperbole surrounding raducanu's victory i've only ever had a passing interest in the womens game.

Serena williams aside, the standard has been abysmal for years. Some of the grand slam finals are over in an hour.

Until the ladies start playing 5 sets in slams, it'll always be a poor relative in comparison to the mens game

Henman Bill wrote:I don't think it is much of a point against Laver that 3 of the slams were on grass. Today we also have a reasonably homogeneous era with a similar game being played on any surface, and no serve volley skills required. If anything the French Open-Wimbledon double was considered much more difficult in years gone by than it is today.

This three slams on grass argument gets wheeled out as if it´s a slam dunk, which it really isn´t. I think it´s just a way of trying to dismiss the years gone by and focus only on the modern era.

Here is an interesting article:
https://www.tennisnow.com/News/2021/September-2021/How-Rod-Laver-Won-the-First-Open-Grand-Slam-in-196.aspx

What we can say about Laver 1969 is that he wasn´t completely dominating. He had many tight 5 set matches in the slams. His story was more of a hollywood movie than it was an impressive feat of domination, and he lost many matches in other tournaments that year.

Good article.

Out of interest, should Novak win tonight, how do you rate his accomplishment - less, equal or greater than Laver's?

Totally agree, there was a phase from 80s to 2010 where there were some great women’s matches and rivalries. You had players during those times like Graf, Navoratoliva, Evert, Seles, Sanchez vicario, Capriati, Hingis, Davenport, Williams sisters, Henin etc. The last 10 years have been so forgettable, I genuinely have not even had the motivation or got excited to watch a single match since. I lost track of the number of Ladies slam finals that lasted between 45 - 90 mins. It’s been embarrassing quite frankly, quite a few lasted in and around 60 mins and I think Halep won Wimbledon in about 50 mins.

I know some people were excited yesterday because two teens were in the final but it’s not like teens didn’t reach latter stages of finals before. Hingis, Williams, Becker, Chang, Nadal, Djokovic etc. Sure Chang won the french open at 16 and never won another slam (unless I am mistaken). I am not taking away from their achievement but this isn’t new in tennis.

B.A. BARACUS wrote:Despite all the hyperbole surrounding raducanu's victory i've only ever had a passing interest in the womens game.

Serena williams aside, the standard has been abysmal for years. Some of the grand slam finals are over in an hour.

Until the ladies start playing 5 sets in slams, it'll always be a poor relative in comparison to the mens game

I thought the women´s final was at a high level compared to many WTA finals I´ve seen in recent years, right from the first game.

It wasn´t quite what I expected. I thought at least one of them might be nervous and bottle it given the scenario, but not so. They actually played a very good match.

They already look arguably better players that the current WTA top players.

A few of Raducanu´s shots were bullets, flying off the court. Looking at her arms it´s hard to see how she can generate that kind of controlled power, her technique must be spectacular.

It´s an open question at this point about whether Raducanu will go on to win many slams or be a great. I think it would actually be foolish to make predictions of number of slams, but I think the evidence seems to point towards a more positive direction.

Winning the tournament as a qualifier might have seemed a one off - a 1986 Joe Johnson to continue the snooker analogy- if she had won several tight matches - but to do it in straight sets in every match is ridiculous.

And as not many have mentioned, if you really think about it, to do it without even being taken to 5-5 - is even another level beyond not losing a set. (She did have one 7-5 set in the qualifiers, but no one took 5 games off her in a set the main draw.)

She seems mentally quite measured and that looks promising. I hope someone tells her to stay out of political issues and teaches her on how to avoid controversy for a few years. She needs a media team that preps her for interviews and press conferences. All that needs to be carefully managed as parts of the British media are a joke.

It was interesting to see so many other tennis pros in the stadium, as if they were aware that this was a match that 20 years from now you would want to say you were there, as if you knew that there was a chance you might be witnessing something not just special but that would become even more legendary in retrospect.

Raducanu probably has potential to improve given how little she´s played this far.

B.A. BARACUS wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:I don't think it is much of a point against Laver that 3 of the slams were on grass. Today we also have a reasonably homogeneous era with a similar game being played on any surface, and no serve volley skills required. If anything the French Open-Wimbledon double was considered much more difficult in years gone by than it is today.

This three slams on grass argument gets wheeled out as if it´s a slam dunk, which it really isn´t. I think it´s just a way of trying to dismiss the years gone by and focus only on the modern era.

Here is an interesting article:
https://www.tennisnow.com/News/2021/September-2021/How-Rod-Laver-Won-the-First-Open-Grand-Slam-in-196.aspx

What we can say about Laver 1969 is that he wasn´t completely dominating. He had many tight 5 set matches in the slams. His story was more of a hollywood movie than it was an impressive feat of domination, and he lost many matches in other tournaments that year.

Good article.

Out of interest, should Novak win tonight, how do you rate his accomplishment - less, equal or greater than Laver's?

Probably about the same.

I know women's tennis is not everyone's cup of tea.

But at a time when women's sport is being bigged up, particularly in Britain and on the BBC, it can be said, IMHO, that tennis is a sport that women play really well and, noise aside, in a very watchable way.

Consider this. Women's rugby, football and cricket are now all getting big coverage.

But I believe that the standard of any of these sports as played by women is not a patch on the standard of tennis played by women.

Take cricket. A good men's club team would probably beat the England Test women's side. I think some of the women would bat well against the club bowling, but the club batsmen would probably hit the women's bowling all around the ground.

The same CANNOT be said for tennis. The top women's professional players would crush an average male tennis club player and also beat a good club player.

I never really take women's sport that seriously and I think it can get over-covered for the sake of political correctness.

But I do take women's tennis seriously. OK, it's not as good as the men's game, but, hey, it's still pretty good.

I defy anyone to consider that the Emma final yesterday was not good, quality tennis and not good sport.

The women´s game had more great players for a while - Graf, Seles, Hingis and Henin - and then somewhat less so, that is true.

Although I think dismissing the last 10 years so completely seems harsh on Serena Williams if nothing else, as it is a period when she has got to the slam record.

There is a good side to it being more competitive as well, it keeps it more interesting, even though people seem to prefer either dominance or great rivalries.

I probably watched women´s tennis almost 50% of the time until Tim Henman came along and I became a fan of his, we didn´t have, at that time, a player of that calibre on the women´s side.

I was still a big Hingis fan though.

If we were to (unfairly) try to find one scapegoat to blame for loss of interest in women´s tennis I would say Azarenka.

I remember when she first came in she was a young player ranked outside the top 10 and when you watched her play on the outside courts of a tournament I thought "that level of shrieking is embarrassing and stupid even by the standards of today, she will have to sort that out before anyone will take her seriously".

At one point, it was easy to dismiss her as a joke. But then she got to no 1 and carried on the same stupid nonsense, and the WTA did nothing about it. I am not sure if the non-shriekers on the WTA tour realized that tens of millions of pounds of prize money and sponsorships were being lost by everyone because of the shriekers. That people like me had given up on the tour entirely because of certain players.

At one point, I remember deciding that I wouldn´t bother following the women´s tournaments until Azarenka had been knocked out. I just looked at the scores and thought I would turn on the TV when she was out. That was when I really started to discontinue watching women´s tennis because as soon as I decided that there was a period when she seemed to reach every final.

I started to dislike Sharapova and Serena Williams around this time for various reasons, and that didn´t leave much left to love because around that time (2012-2014) one of the three of them seemed to be winning most big tournaments.

And this roughly coincided with a very strong era of men´s tennis (2008-2013 perhaps) where the big four were delivering something special.

I think Raducana and Fernandez yesterday were a breath of fresh air as both of them have an grunt/shriek level of almost zero.

The other plus point for Raducana was she didn´t rely on errors. All the key points - break points, set points, match points, saw her rise to the occassion. Her match point ace was reminiscent of the one Rosol hit past Nadal at Wimbledon right in the middle of the period when I was losing interest in women´s tennis.

I love that, if you haven´t watched any of Raducanu yet, at least watch 2 and a half minute highlights below to see what I mean:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRydTS4kCaE

Go to 7.18 in the below to compare to the Rosol ace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3bwsDW6MFU

To perhaps build on what some of you have been saying, it´s possible that this weekend may turn out to mark a shift from an era in which men´s tennis was better and more popular to a new era in which they will be seen on an equal footing.

If Novak wins today then that is the climax of his story and perhaps the whole Federer/Nadal/Djokovic story. If Novak´s career were made into a movie, then a win today would be the climactic moment. Everything else that happens after that in his career would be footnotes: "he went on to win two more slams before retiring" would be a message that accompanied the end credits to the movie.

So this weekend may be a transitional moment. But..we will only be able to properly judge that some years in the future.

Already Raducanu rather than Federer or Djokovic looks like the hot ticket for Wimbledon 2022.

B.A. BARACUS wrote:Good article.

Playing in Australian heat at 105F, without a Tie-break requires capabilities that none of the current players have or seen. I suggest watching the Pasarell-Gonzalez match on YouTube.

Can Medvedev stop Djoko's seemingly unhindered progress towards tennis sporting immortality?

I don't think so, but it may be fun watching him try. Having staged a memorable fightback against Rafa in his first Slam final, Medvedev went down far more tamely to Novak in his second.

Reckon there will be more fight from him tonight. You feel he has to win the first set to have much chance, although going a set up against Djoko ain't worked out well for his opponents so far.

Djoko in four, for me.

sirfredperry wrote:The same CANNOT be said for tennis. The top women's professional players would crush an average male tennis club player and also beat a good club player.

This should be expected as the average club player probably has to hold down a regular job and won't have a full time coach.

Just seen a clip of Emma R thanking fans in Mandarin. Is there anything this girl can't do?

Imagine being her mum and dad now. They would loved to have been there in New York. But to see their girl distinguish herself both on AND off the court. Proud probably doesn't even begin to cut it...

Nice piece here on the Emma triumph

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2021/sep/12/emma-raducanus-us-open-win-was-a-glorious-aligning-of-the-fates

sirfredperry wrote:Just seen a clip of Emma R thanking fans in Mandarin. Is there anything this girl can't do?

Imagine being her mum and dad now. They would loved to have been there in New York. But to see their girl distinguish herself both on AND off the court. Proud probably doesn't even begin to cut it...

Seems like a pleasant level headed girl and fingers crossed she has a distinguished career.

The british media can be very suffocating though and for her sake, considering she is only 18, i'd hope they give the girl some air and let her forge her own path in the game rather than hound her till kingdom come.

Appreciate that it's a quite a story for a relatively unknown brit teenager to win her first major out of the blue like this but some of the coverage is getting rather over zealous now.

Reminds me of Henman in the late 90's - early 2000's, every wimbledon the british media would lose the plot for a couple of weeks

I'm not sure I agree with this article - if this is a freak win surely someone would have at least pushed her to a 3rd set or a tiebreak or something. She looks like the genuine article to me.

The day after the day before …. it really, really, did happen !

Who imagined that such a seminal episode of tennis history would be created by a) a British player, b) an 18 year-old just out of school …….

Emma Raducanu : you deserve every plaudit, every bit of praise for this truly stunning achievement : first qualifier - male or female - ever to capture a Slam title. .

Our new global sporting superstar. And sealed with an ace

Only just been able to see some extended highlights of the Djoko-Zverev semi.

Looked a terrific match, with some wonderful, and long, rallies. Zverev played very well and, ominously for Medvedev, Djoko looked in prime form.

I think the UK media can be forgiven for going OTT over Emma. Cracking story, after all. It's not as if the last 44 years have been full of success for British women tennis players.

A young woman almost forgotten amid the Emma-Leylah hysteria - one Coco Gauff - lost out in the women's doubles today, giving veteran Sam Stosur, in what could be her last USO, another title.

Djokovic needs to better control his emotions, otherwise it will cause him more grief. Medvedev breaks.

Money and success can't buy you class.

This is only going one way, never seem Djokovic so tight. Handing it to Medvedev. Literally the worst I have ever seen him play

Disappointed to see that JP Morgan Chase is sponsoring this event, and that, as far as I can see, no major player has spoken against them. If they have, I haven't seen it reported. The lack of coverage on this is clear evidence both of society´s denialism about the seriousness of climate change, and specifically the lack of public knowledge about the role of the finance and banking industry in the fossil fuel industry.

JP Morgan Chase is consistently year after year the world no 1 funder of fossil fuels - about $50 billion per year - and this funding is used to expand existing reserves and create new ones - when we desperately need to reduce fossil fuel reserves.

They are actively working to create a 3 or 4 degree world where civilization might collapse, at least in poor countries, and millions of people will die.

JP Morgan Chase alone is easily responsible for climate change deaths in the many thousands just for profit.

Accepting them as a sponsor amounts to having no standards or ethics whatsoever.

Annoying to have to see their branding plastered all over this great court.

Soul Requiem wrote:Money and success can't buy you class.

If you are referring to Djokovic, it is a tad bit unfair.

Henman Bill wrote:The lack of coverage on this is clear evidence both of society´s denialism about the seriousness of climate change, and specifically the lack of public knowledge about the role of the finance and banking industry in the fossil fuel industry.

USA funds militaries around the world for energy security including some of the largest fossil fuel producers.