US Open Qualifiers and Draw

First topic message reminder :

Qualifying rounds taking place today and the following 3 days in New York. Vicky Duval won her first match on her return from treatment for cancer, and 16 year old CiCi Bellis beat 44 year old Kimiko Date Krumm.

The main draws are on Thursday. Seeding for the men follows the rankings as no withdrawals so:
1 Djokovic, Novak SRB
2 Federer, Roger SUI
3 Murray, Andy GBR
4 Nishikori, Kei JPN
------
5 Wawrinka, Stan SUI
6 Berdych, Tomas CZE
7 Ferrer, David ESP
8 Nadal, Rafael ESP
------
9 Cilic, Marin CRO
10 Raonic, Milos CAN
11 Simon, Gilles FRA
12 Gasquet, Richard FRA

13 Isner, John USA
14 Goffin, David BEL
15 Anderson, Kevin RSA
16 Monfils, Gael FRA
------
17 Dimitrov, Grigor BUL
18 Lopez, Feliciano ESP
19 Tsonga, Jo-Wilfried FRA
20 Thiem, Dominic AUT
21 Karlovic, Ivo CRO
22 Troicki, Viktor SRB
23 Bautista Agut, Roberto ESP
24 Tomic, Bernard AUS

25 Seppi, Andreas ITA
26 Robredo, Tommy ESP
27 Chardy, Jeremy FRA
28 Sock, Jack USA
29 Kohlschreiber, Philipp GER
30 Bellucci, Thomaz BRA
31 Garcia-Lopez, Guillermo ESP
32 Fognini, Fabio ITA

Top 4 draw 25-32 in R3, 13-16 in R4, 5-8  in QF. What draw would you like to see or like to avoid for any of the top contenders?

Easiest route for any of 1-4 looks like R3 Belluci, R4 Goffin, QF Ferrer
Toughest maybe R3 Chardy, R4 Monfils, QF Wawrinka

Lurking unseeded are Dolgopolov, Kyrgios along with big servers such as Muller, Querrey, Groth. Any others to avoid?

summerblues wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:if you go around tennis pundits around the globe (incognito if you so wish so they are not inclined to give British bias as is always levied that any pro-Murray stuff is by people only with British bias) you will not hear many levying greengoblin's opinion about that match.

Surely you forgot to preface this with "in my opinion"?

Well it isn't just my opinion (so that would be wrong in this case) as a CBS report agreed with my opinion. Perhaps should read in 'our opinion' then?

greengoblin wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Can you explain the joke here please and how we are meant to get a giggle out of that pray tell.

And one thing is sure - Murray fans are more critical of their player than Federer fans are of their player without a doubt, Djoko fans critize their man and in recent times Rafa fans have been critical of their man as well. Have a gander at my posts and I frequently have words of criticism or rants on Murray's form. Heck about a year ago on here I wrote his epitaph so I can handle fair and concise criticism and hand it out myself. It is the unfair stuff that gets my back up.

I never claimed it to be side splitting. Someone suggested to watch the match for analysis. All I did was give my opinion on that in a  slightly tongue in cheek fashion . What is the issue here??

No it isn't funny in the slightest. It reads as harsh criticism on a Wimbledon Final (in your opinion) worded wrongly (in my opinion) to paint it in as bad a light as you saw fit. No humour there so I don't see why the pretense that there was any humour intended.

I don't understand why posters feel an issue of personalisation with others views on a player's performance. 

The fact there was some posters on here non Murray fans that felt he could play a shot in a similar vein to Federer is high praise indeed. 

When all said and done Murray's career stats won't lie. I am a Murray fan and GGs comments didn't stick in my crawl at all. I'd rather variety in debate as well as the game rather than the rigid uniform approach.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I don't understand why posters feel an issue of personalisation with others views on a player's performance. 

The fact there was some posters on here non Murray fans that felt he could play a shot in a similar vein to Federer is high praise indeed. 

When all said and done Murray's career stats won't lie. I am a Murray fan and GGs comments didn't stick in my crawl at all. I'd rather variety in debate as well as the game rather than the rigid uniform approach.

As I said earlier I am all for differing opinions. Heck myself and banbro (Murray supporters) even have differing opinions amongst ourselves. Haddie-nuff and Belovedlucky Boy have differing opinions on Rafa so you have differing opinions. It only bugs me when falsehoods come out and then I feel the need to challenge that. No big deal in that is there?

Why the complaints that Andy does not get the respect he deserves on this forum?

There will always be a spectrum of opinions - from those giving him too little respect to those giving him too much respect - but that strikes me as a good thing. Forum where everyone would agree would be dull.

It is not like the forum overall does not give him respect and recognition.

Murray isn't "ultra defensive". That just isn't an accurate description of his game at all. For the most part, he plays a balanced baseline game, looking to dictate behind either the serve or return.

Where, in the past, be has been too passive is when playing someone ultra-aggressive - particularly in big matches. Rather than try and take the racquet out of their hands, he has instead seemingly worked on the basis that they will blow themselves out.

He has added more variety back into his game post-Lendl. I thought his game-plan wasn't far off against Fed in Cincy - just let down by a poor returning display. Like most of their matches, the outcome depends largely on how well Murray returns. At the slightly slower US Open courts, he should have the edge back in that matchup.

I guess its just past reputations. CC must have felt GG was trying to demean or demote Muzzahs Wimby achievement, which was particularly poignant for us fans who watched him going through the wringer every year. Perhaps this was misunderstood and should maybe just be left as that

Aye bs, Muzz is a counterpuncher, not a straight up defender. With Roger at the mo hes getting a bit stuck between putting balls in play and just trying to do what he does against the other 2 big guns, and go for his shots.

Hes better suited just going for it like he used to

Spot on BS and as for Andys Wimbledon wins, Slam and Gold Medal, both showed the variety which he now has at his  disposal.

greengoblin wrote:What is the issue here??

I dunno, maybe the 8 years plus of the constant 'meh' attitude to Murray. In some respects you're not aware of this, so I can understand your vexed comments. Crickey we've even got LK joining in and he's a fan!!

Some of are bemused that whenever Tsonga, Kyrgious, Dimitrov, Nishikori (or whoever's 'in vogue' at that time) play a good few tournies on the trot - they are seen as the second coming.

Meanwhile Murray's destroys Nadal in his own backyard, destroys the player with (up to then) the most hard court wins of the season, beats the world No.1 with good attacking presence - but we get two pages of us getting told how he needs to improve

In fairness Novak has is far rougher. You'd think he'd struggled to win a couple of majors, based on the average comments he gets

There's always been an issue with these two. I'm not certain if it's because they had the audacity not only to take on Roger and Rafa, but think they could be as good. My point is that it's not the quality of their tennis - those below them are far more 'unwatchable', i.e. Dimi against Gasquet at Wimbledon, for far more of the time

I'm a bit of a naive optimist, who doesn't do negativity, I just think that maybe both Nole and Andy deserve better treatment

temporary21 wrote:I guess its just past reputations. CC must have felt GG was trying to demean or demote Muzzahs Wimby achievement, which was particularly poignant for us fans who watched him going through the wringer every year. Perhaps this was misunderstood and should maybe just be left as that

Aye bs, Muzz is a counterpuncher, not a straight up defender. With Roger at the mo hes getting a bit stuck between putting balls in play and just trying to do what he does against the other 2 big guns, and go for his shots.

Hes better suited just going for it like he used to

Pretty much...yes that is how it looked to me. Don't forget we already have a number here who point to wind being the reason he also won in the US Open. Two slam wins and twice excuses or cold water thrown on them. If Murray ever does win another slam will it really matter as no doubt that will be excused away in some shape or form. Strange as another dual slam winner Hewitt doesn't get that sort of treatment.

Well Hewitt was never any threat to Fedal.
Think ban gets its right here, for whatever reason, right or wrong, peoples reputations are preceding them here.
Best thing to so is just ignore (you can even set them to foes) people who go for wind excuses and do that such guff.

I can take the criticism as long as it is well-balanced and fair-minded. Anyways everyone enjoy the US Open.

This year I will do cc.
Good luck

I think Djokovic will be much more appreciated when he's retired. His rise signified perhaps the end of the magic Federer and Nadal brought to tennis after a down spell in the sport from around 2000.

Very similar to Lendl, his rise meant the end of the famous McEnroe, Borg and Connors battles. And with them falling away he dominated the sport without really any rivals other than a Wilander, Edberg or Becker having a bright spell.

Djokovics dominance has no rival, Murray hasn't quite been able to keep up and their match up isn't as diverse as past rivalries. Federer has spells of brilliance but he won't be a challenge all year round

I think the game has missed out because of Delpos injuries, his game was different enough to Novaks to create more intrigue.

Delpo

The thing is Banbro I didn't find GG's view all that damning. It's not like he was taking away from his achievement. I interpreted it as that GG wasn't a fan of the quality of the match. Many a player have won Major finals and Andy won't be the first or last. The other issue was the feeling that Andy has the weapons at his disposal to be a more positive and attacking player and I think we can all agree with that.

There have been some quality matches he has played and won and lost as have many another. However, it goes back to the point that many wish to see the Andy who showed so much variation in his early days.

Exactly that LK.

Tomorrow's OOP is out - I was going to start a day 1 thread, but I realised I'm no good at puns

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/schedule/p_schedule7.pdf

Not a lot of love for the defending men's champion (unlike the women's) - stuck on Armstrong during the day.

I don't see how Nadal's draw is all that bad - except Djokovic in the QF obviously. Coric only looks bad because he's been touted as a future star and beaten Nadal before, but Nadal wasn't really fit to play then. Raonic could have been tough but he has no recent form whatsoever. I'd be surprised if Nadal lost before the QF, though admittedly not completely shocked. In fact, if Djokovic had a real shocker and went out early, I could see Nadal reaching the final!

YvonneT wrote:Not a lot of love for the defending men's champion (unlike the women's) - stuck on Armstrong during the day.

LOL, indeed.  I did not even notice, so low-profile he has been.  Well, he never backed up his title all year long.  Unless he reproduces the magic, he is going down the rankings to where he used to be.  Unlike Nishi who has been consistent enough throughout the year.

I expect Cilic will go out early-ish to some random opponent.

YvonneT wrote:I'd be surprised if Nadal lost before the QF, though admittedly not completely shocked. In fact, if Djokovic had a real shocker and went out early, I could see Nadal reaching the final!

..and if Djokovic, Nishikori, Murray, Wawrinka all had real shockers and lost early, he could win the title

In all seriousness, I was looking at the opponents Cilic faced last year and I think if Rafa faced those same opponents, then even on current form he would have some chance - granted, not a given - of lifting the trophy.

I think Rafa's draw is tough but I also think that even this year, he has been maybe 5th-8th best player in the world, so no matter what draw, he is still reasonably likely to make the QF and, as you say, if Nole somehow imploded before then, Rafa could go well beyond that too.

On the other hand, if they both make QF and if Nole plays anywhere near his current form, I see little hope for Rafa.

Cilic's in the second quarter where the seeds are Nishikori, Robredo, Tsonga, Monfils, Cilic, Dimitrov, Chardy, Ferrer.

If Nishikori is healthy then he should easily make it out of there but if not, that is a big opportunity for the others to make the semis.

summerblues wrote:Why the complaints that Andy does not get the respect he deserves on this forum?

There will always be a spectrum of opinions - from those giving him too little respect to those giving him too much respect - but that strikes me as a good thing.  Forum where everyone would agree would be dull.

It is not like the forum overall does not give him respect and recognition.

I agree with this. I mean, I presume we all have some sort of passion for tennis to be bother posting here (whether it's for one player or many or even against players) so I get when people get annoyed about others' opinions and want to counter them. But the respect one I don't really get - if you like a player who cares if other people give them sufficient respect (whatever that even means). In particular, why care about greengoblin's respect when he seem to have so little for any player (not even the current standout no.1).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/34104670

Sharapova out

Very interesting table from Summer Blues. Djokovic is so consistent – his only losses outside big 4 have been to players very close to that level, Warwinka and Nishikori. He hasn’t had a single really shock defeat. Unlike Nadal (at Wimbledon) and Federer (everywhere) who’ve got way downhill in this regard.

Did Federer really lose to Seppi? That is like some half remembered bad dream. Gulbis? Again, some half remembered bad dream. The Stakhovsky and Robredo and Cilic ones I remember well.

Murray has done very well, just look how many slams he would have got in a weak era. I think that chart would look different pre 2011 but from 2011 onwards more consistent that I thought, Dimitrov at Wimbledon as defending champion is the standout poor result, but the others – Warwinka at the US Open and Ferrer at RG – are hardly disgraceful results.

Day 1 standout Coric v Nadal apart from that the matches on the Grandstand actually look better - Nishikori-Paire might be OK. Main court matches in the day time look dull.