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.

Not sure how F AA managed to lose that set. By all accounts there was a missed volley on SP that will haunt him.

Medvedev running away with it now. Serving for the match at 5-2 third set.

Medvedev looking very solid, really dangerous player for whoever wins tonight. Can’t really warm to Medvedev as a player but no doubt about it, he is a great player and super effective. Really tough player to break down

I don't think Djokovic can beat Zverev (or Medvedev) by physical strength or stamina.  I think those advantages are now with Zverev (and Medvedev).   Zverev (24) and Medvedev (25) should be at the peak of their physical abilities.  Old Man Djokovic (34) who has had a long exhausting year, with lots of scar tissue around his dilapidated body, has to rely on his court craft and shot selections.

F AA tamely goes away.

Looking at bookies odds it is about 70% Djokovic/30% Zverev
Novak currently rated about 50% to win the tournament

Raducanu is considered the favourite in the women`s

Scary high level of tennis so far in Djokovic vs Zverev match. 4-3 Novak on serve

Djokovic yet again loses 1st set. He has been such a slow starter in this tournament. Zverev serving very well

What a match! Fair play to Zverev who played fantastic. Superb win for Djokovic

Stayed up for that. A good, not quite great match. Djokovic is so solid, he sustains such a strong base level with groundstrokes that are difficult to attack, and if the opponent is having a good day he just goes through the other gears he has available. He showed today that he's simply an overall better player than Zverev, with a wider array of ways to win points and some great drop shots.

I predict Djoko in 4 on Sunday. I really like Medvedev and his flat-hitting style and refreshingly honest media persona, but like today I think Djoko will use his wider skill set to get the win. In Australia I felt Medvedev kind of gave up after losing a tight first set and changed tactics too drastically for the rest of the match. If you are managing to push Djokovic to tight sets then It's probably better to just make relatively small adjustments.

Watching the highlights of the fifth set there were some incredible periods of play.  Zverev was there physically battling with Djokovic all the time and Djokovic had to win the match rather than it being given to him gift wrapped.  Zverev 24 will have plenty more opportunities in future.  There are a number of players now getting closer and closer, but you would sort of expect that now given Djokovics age. That match lasted 3 hrs 33 minutes, one minute more than Djokovic's previous longest match in this tournament - his 4 sets win over Nishikori in the third round. For Zverev that match was 1 hr and 8 minutes longer than his previous longest match, his three set win over Lloyd Harris in the fourth round.

Djoko continues to give his opponents a set start....and still wins.

From the first time I saw Djoko play as a teenager he looked so mentally solid. Now, in his mid-30s, that strength and belief is still there.

I'm really pleased that Zverev made it thus far and that Medvedev has gone all the way to the final. In the absence of Rafa and Rog, I wanted Djoko to beat the best of the rest if he was going to get the Calendar Slam.

I can see Medvedev getting one set in the final, maybe even two. But I can't see him winning, not when Novak has come so far.

However, if the Russian can produce the form he showed in that remarkable fightback against Rafa in the 2019 USO final then it could be a great match.

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.

The women's final tonight will be live on the UK's Channel 4.

I think Fernandez will win. She's already faced defeat and is far more battle-hardened than Emma R.

What might help the Briton is the weight of expectation that, for me, sits more squarely on the Canadian's shoulders than on Emma's.

It could be that we could reach a stage where Leylah thinks: "I've beaten all these top players. Why am I having to battle to overcome this 150th-ranked qualifier?"

Of course, this could be all nonsense and she'll just go out and blast Emma off the court without a thought.

Whatever happens it's been an amazing run by both players.

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.

Looking back, Zverev played one of his best matches, in sets 1 and 4 his level was phenomenal and even in the 5th set he didn’t play badly at all. I think he beats anyone else with that level yesterday

Laver’s first slam was, of course, in the Amateur era, so is slightly asterisked on the basis that he probably wasn’t actually the best player in the world at that time. However, he would have had chances to do it from the 1964-1967 period had it not been for the amateur-pro split, when he was the best player.

It is very Novak that an attempt to do the CYGS is being slightly overshadowed by the hype around the ladies final. It feels that, whilst he may well go down as the best player ever by the time he retires, he still won’t get the love which he seems to have been craving. I think he’s slight underdog against Medvedev given the length of the match against Zverev, and even Novak most start to slightly struggle to recover at this stage of his career, but hopefully it will be a match the occasion deserves.

slashermcguirk wrote:Looking back, Zverev played one of his best matches, in sets 1 and 4 his level was phenomenal and even in the 5th set he didn’t play badly at all. I think he beats anyone else with that level yesterday

Agree with this. Best I’ve seen Zverev play consistently and he still couldn’t quite get the job done. The final game of the third set was a simply insane 6 points which ultimately probably decided the match.

The views above of the quality of Zverev's performance highlight the difficulty players have knocking the likes of Rafa and Noval off their perches.

It is the thought that you have to play your absolute best tennis to win, and even a top-rate effort might not be enough.

The five-set formula in slams is no help to the lesser lights, either. So often they can win one set, sometimes two, but they can't play really well for long enough to clinch that elusive third set.

Djoko, for instance, has done so well at the Slams that he's built a huge wall of five-set experiences. His mind and body is entirely tuned to five-set matches. Lose the first set? - no big deal. Go two sets down? - OK, not great, but I've got out of this before.

Match point down? No sweat. I can still win.

It's the usual story with the new generation, get into a decent position and then fall apart.

Give credit where it’s due, do you realise how hard it is to sustain that insane level of tennis for 3-4 hours. I am inclined to think the likes of Jim Courier with 4 slams know what they are talking about. He even said Zverev played phenomenal but those top 3 guys at their best are just so damn good. Look at the 5th set, Zverev did very little wrong and played some really great tennis, sometimes your opponent is just too good. Zverev will certainly win slams. To say he just fell apart is so harsh when you look at his performance and how hard he battled right to the very last point.



quote="Soul Requiem"]It's the usual story with the new generation, get into a decent position and then fall apart.[/quote]

To quote Zverev:

“There is a reason why he's won 20 Grand Slams. There's a reason why he's spent the most weeks at World No. 1. There's a lot of reasons for that.
“I think mentally he's the best player to ever play the game. Mentally in the most important moments I would rather play against anybody else but him.”
The 24-year-old expected his conqueror to complete the Grand Slam in Sunday’s final against second seed Daniil Medvedev. “Nobody thought anybody will do it again, what Rod Laver did. To see him have the chance on Sunday - I do believe that he will do it - is great. He's breaking every single record that there is,” Zverev said.
“If you look at the stats, if you look at the pure game of tennis action, he's the greatest of all time. Nobody is there with him, because most weeks World No. 1, most ATP Masters 1000 titles, most likely going to be the most Grand Slams at the end of the day. And he has the chance of winning all four in the same year. How do you compete with that?”

It's not harsh when it happens so many times, when it really matters Zverev just can't hack it. That is partly down to Djokovic but it's also down to mental weakness, as a top level player he should be capable of maintaining his level.

This was not like other times, he played really well right to the end. Djokovic is just a better player. That’s like saying when tiger woods dominated golf, why did the other players keep bottling it? The answer is you are talking about all time great players in their sport. I agree that if Zverev just bottled it or threw in the towel but he clearly did neither, he played well until the final point. He was just put under so much pressure, I would find it very hard to fault him at all yesterday

Zverev is just not in the same league of greatness compared to Djokovic. For me it was akin to expecting Tim Henman to be able to rock up and beat Pete Sampras in a slam final - just not happening. The golden generation will soon be consigned to history in the next couple of years or before and it will be replaced by a bronze generation.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Zverev is just not in the same league of greatness compared to Djokovic. For me it was akin to expecting Tim Henman to be able to rock up and beat Pete Sampras in a slam final - just not happening. The golden generation will soon be consigned to history in the next couple of years or before and it will be replaced by a bronze generation.

Not even vaguely similar. You're comparing pistol Pete at his absolute best to Djokovic at about 60%, the next generation should be winning by now if they're as good as some make out.

Sascha Zverev is 0-10 vs top 10 players at majors. Yesterday he once again showed he’s not mentally strong enough over 5 sets.

Just for example purposes:
Thiem has 9 wins vs top 10 players in majors - iirc he’s beaten both Djokovic and Nadal at least once.
Tsitsipas has 4 wins vs top 10 players
Medvedev has 3 wins vs top 10 players

These guys are simple ahead of Zverev mentally.

I'm a bit on the fence on whether Zverev bottled it a bit. He played OK in the 5th, but the horror misses he made break point down on both his first and second service game stuck in my mind. That's nothing to do with the opponent, they were truly terrible misses. I said this at the start, the next gen can compete very well but just don't have the mental fortitude.

I think that was the case in some of those earlier matches but I think yesterday was different, that is the best I have seen Zverev play in a slam. He stayed the course throughout but Djokovic played some superb tennis at key moments. I think this loss for Zverev feels different to the others you refer to. I know a loss is a loss but this one didn’t feel like those other matches. He played consistently well throughout and I am convinced that level would have beaten anyone else.

Jeff Navarro wrote:Sascha Zverev is 0-10 vs top 10 players at majors. Yesterday he once again showed he’s not mentally strong enough over 5 sets.

Just for example purposes:
Thiem has 9 wins vs top 10 players in majors - iirc he’s beaten both Djokovic and Nadal at least once.
Tsitsipas has 4 wins vs top 10 players
Medvedev has 3 wins vs top 10 players

These guys are simple ahead of Zverev mentally.

I agree it was a good match, they matched each other well in set 1, there were some mistakes as well in the match, but also times when the breakthroughs were from winners and net play.

I think Novak had a little more in terms of "court craft" as I think of it, drop shots and angled balls and variety and the occasional unexpected short ball, in fact in general the players in their 20s tend to lack this a bit perhaps?

Add yeah Laver´s first grand slam is heavily asterisked, to be honest it barely counts. He was playing in arguably a second tier tour at that time.

Amidst a tennis year which, in many ways, has been less than inspiring, this amazing streak by the youthful and hugely charismatic Emma Raducanu as the first-ever qualifier to reach a Slam Final is like a megawatt ray of piercing light.

Some observers are already convinced that we can expect to crown the young British player as a new World Number One within just a couple of years or so.. That’s obviously a far-from-straightforward  target, and there are likely to be all manner of challenges and obstacles along the way. But - quite regardless of tonight’s result - all the early signs point to a genuine, long-term, star-in-the-making. I myself am suddenly motivated to take considerably more interest in the women’s Tour than I have done in recent times.

Weird as it may seem (and I have no problem at all being considered weird !), I feel way less anticipation / enthusiasm / excitement for what is very likely to be a truly special achievement by the current men’s Number One. I’m not sure exactly why that is (though will be perfectly happy to applaud the historic event when it happens) but I do sense that I am far from alone …… even amongst keen followers of the sport. For me, this USO - and indeed 2021 overall - will always be Emma’s time.

If Djokovic wins tomorrow, I think its game over for the GOAT debates (unless Nadal wins another couple of slams, including Aus Open) - that calendar year grand slam is a truly special achievement in the modern era.  I know some will say that the achievement is slightly diminished due to impact of Covid/decline of Federer/Nadal/absence of Thiem, etc, but the physical and mental exertion to consistently compete at highest level in different surfaces across the slams is truly unique indeed.  Djokovic may not be the biggest fan favourite but he is such a complete player - the guile, angles and dropshots have added extra dimension to his game.  Yes, I'll probably be rooting for Medvedev, but if Djokovic pulls this off tomorrow, we really have to salute him - unique achievement we may not witness again for a long long time.  My prediction: Djokovic in 5 sets.

Onto Raducanu and Fernandez, where to start?  Fernandez's run, beating Osaka, Kerber and Svitolina is impressive to say the least, whilst on Raducanu, the run to the final *after coming through qualifiers* is a stunning achievement.  I've probably not looked at either player's matches as much as others but Raducanu impresses with her mix of sustained aggression and sound defensive game, and also evidence of real mental toughness, fending off breakpoints at crucial moments.  However, from what I've seen of Fernandez some of the shotmaking looks particularly breathtaking - really comes up with special shots at key moments.  She is the favourite and I would give her the edge, but this match, like many womens' finals will come down to who settles quickest.  My prediction: Fernandez in 3 sets.

Hopefully its a good match - I really do feel the womens' matches should be longer in at least the finals - if women athletes can compete in marathons, triathlons and other ultra-endurance events, I can't see why we can't get best of 5 set matches in the big matches in tennis finals.

Finally, this has been a really enjoyable tournament on both the mens' and womens' - really needed it after the lacklustre Wimbledon we had earlier in the summer.

P.S @ SFP - no need to worry about those unreliable tennis streaming websites for the womens' final - Channel 4 are showing it tonight!

I hope it’s a great women’s final and having two teenagers there is good to see but some perspective is needed. This is a very poor era for women’s tennis, there are literally no ‘great’ players with serena now gone and probably the weakest top 10 I can ever remember. I can’t think of one decent rivalry in women’s tennis for years now.

Again I hope it’s a good final but let’s not kid ourselves, it’s a very weak women’s field

I was not aware that the Zverev stats against top 10 players at Slams (0-10) were so bad.

OK, matches against Djoko and Rafa are included in this. But I think I'm right in saying he's 0-3 v Thiem.

Judging him and the rest still comes down to trying to work out whether Djoko is either:
1. The greatest of all time and therefore practically unbeatable over five sets.
or
2. A 34-year-old past his best who the younger players ought to beat.

Agree about the lack of compelling rivalries in womens' game (probably a consequence of all these slam winners we have) but have to take issue with lack of strength of depth in game - its better than ever - just look at the top quality match-ups we had in 2nd/3rd round onwards. Also, more players are prepared to come to the net for the odd point and try and finish with a volley than previously. I agree that we had some enjoyable rivalries with Henin/Clijsters and Serena/Venus, but the strength of field was much weaker then - we used to get some pretty one-sided early round matches in slams.

Serena Williams is a case in point - if it wasn't for the improved strength of depth in the womens' game in recent years she would no doubt have won a couple of those slam finals and matched or beaten Margaret Court's record.

lags72 wrote:...

Weird as it may seem (and I have no problem at all being considered weird !), I feel way less anticipation / enthusiasm / excitement for what is very likely to be a truly special achievement by the current men’s Number One. I’m not sure exactly why that is (though will be perfectly happy to applaud the historic event when it happens) ....

Maybe it is because Djokovic is a shadow of his former self in terms of physical power and elasticity.  He now manages his efforts very well to last a long match.  

2011 was exciting as was 2016.  However after the French Open 2016 Djokovic went on a decline which ended up with elbow surgery.  We had Andy Murray winning Wimbledon 2016 - but then he soon went on the decline which resulted in a hip replacement.

I just don’t see it at all, I really struggle to watch women’s tennis in recent years. Most of the grand slam finals have been embarrassing. There have been finals that lasted less than an hour, which is an absolute joke.

Current top 10:

Barty
Sabalenka
Osaka
Pliskova
Svitolina
Kenin
Andreescu
Swiatek
Krejikova
Muguruza

I would say just one of them (Osaka) will be remembered as close to a great in years to come.


quote="MrInvisible"]Agree about the lack of compelling rivalries in womens' game (probably a consequence of all these slam winners we have) but have to take issue with lack of strength of depth in game - its better than ever - just look at the top quality match-ups we had in 2nd/3rd round onwards.  Also, more players are prepared to come to the net for the odd point and try and finish with a volley than previously.  I agree that we had some enjoyable rivalries with Henin/Clijsters and Serena/Venus, but the strength of field was much weaker then - we used to get some pretty one-sided early round matches in slams.

Serena Williams is a case in point - if it wasn't for the improved strength of depth in the womens' game in recent years she would no doubt have won a couple of those slam finals and matched or beaten Margaret Court's record.  [/quote]

NNB - Interesting you mentioned 2011 for Djoko. His 43-match run that year was one of the greatest achievements in sport, let alone in tennis.

I say that as he was up against the rest of the Big Four who were all fit and playing. Djoko also had this run during Rafa's normally all-conquering clay-court season, managing to beat the Spaniard on his favourite surface.

It was a phenomenal run.

@Slasher - I suppose its horses for courses, but for me, I'd actually look at the quality of the matches rather than how many of that womens' top 10 were greats (ATP has also had some less fashionable names up there too e.g. ask SFP about Berrettini!) - there's some really good tennis being played.

I actually lost interest in womens' tennis for a long while after Henin retired and gravitate naturally more towards ATP, but have been following it again more these last 5 years due to the better quality and greater strength in depth.

@SFP, agree, that 2011 run for Djokovic was a brilliant achievement. Personally though I think I prefer the current style he plays with, which is more rounded game as he can't rely on the physicality alone anymore (I have similar thoughts to Nadal - I enjoy watching 30something Nadal play much more than the 18-22 year old version).

MrI
It's similar with Fed. Watch his matches from around 04, 05 and 06 and they are, dare I say it, a tad boring.

He was so good and fit then that he could rally endlessly and didn't have to come up with the early attacking shot.

Later, and to elongate his career, he became far more attacking and the breathtaking winners poured from his racket.

I was actually at Wimbledon to see his epic match with Sampras in '01. Yes, it was a great match. But looking at highlights now there was a lot of fairly mindless tennis, with the players rushing the net behind any old serve and getting passed.

As you say, Rafa is also far more attacking these days. We're still getting long matches and long rallies (witness the 53-shot rally yesterday) but the days of the ultra-long, baseline duels are, thankfully, over.

Never realised that martina Hingis won her first grand slam aged 16 and had won 4 slams by the age of 18. Mind boggling, she was even world number one by the age of 18

slashermcguirk wrote:Never realised that martina Hingis won her first grand slam aged 16 and had won 4 slams by the age of 18. Mind boggling, she was even world number one by the age of 18

Even more mind boggling that she won the last of her five grand slams at 18, used to really enjoy watching her play.

Losing to Graf at the French in 99 affected her badly.

Meanwhile, at Flushing Meadow we have an enjoyable contest between Raducanu and Fernandez, with Radacanu edging a competitive 1st set with some sustained heavy hitting - Fernandez had her moments but was a little more inconsistent

Lots of crowd support for the Canadian, who is pushing hard to break at 1-1 in 2nd set.

At 3-2 Raducanu has gone up a level, big shots just inside the lines, gets a break from a passing shot to go 4-2 up, then a v dominant hold to lead 5-2. She's turned this set round v quickly. 1 game away!

Simply incredible

10 matches, no sets dropped and no tie breaks. The first qualifier to win a grand slam in the open era. Wow.

Medical time out for a cut knee on break point. Ridiculous

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

They're the rules unfortunately, it's the decision of the chair umpire.

Oh. My. God.

Congratulations to Raducanu. Fantastic victory from/for a Qualifier. Well played, Fernandez!

Soul Requiem wrote:

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

They're the rules unfortunately, it's the decision of the chair umpire.

Thanks I genuinely didn’t know that rule