US Open Day 10 - Is Penetta the Flavia of the month? How much does Vandeweghe? Is Dellacqua fortis?

First topic message reminder :

Order of play
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/22713811

Stan Wawrinka
......2013....2014....2015
AO...4R........W........SF
FO...QF........1R........W
Wi...1R........QF........QF
UO...SF........QF.......SF+

Federer
......2013....2014....2015
AO...SF........SF........3R
FO...QF........4R........QF
Wi...2R..........F..........F
UO...4R........SF.......SF+

I think we will have a Djokovic - Wawrinka final ... and possibly a Wawrinka winner.

Gasquet surrendered. Standing 3 meters behind the baseline when playing Federer is a folly.

Federer was in exhibition mode in the third-set. The numbers are impressive, but they are against an opponent who was unwilling to put in an effort.

Let us hang on to these numbers and compare these to what they will be vs Wawrinka.

The timing was off on FH and BH.

21 UEs in (88 + 55 = 143 points played) is 14%.

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day16/1504ms.html

Compared to the Isner match...

16 UEs in 244 points played ~ 7% which is half of the Gasquet match.

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day14/1408ms.html

The UEs need to be <5% of points played for Federer to stand a chance if he does make it to the finals.

Does not the winners stat & 'exho' mode provide some explanation? If you're doing that then there will be errors.

I think Federer - bar the Kohlschreiber match - is playing to the opponent.

Wawrinka played really well to win against KA, who was probably a little overawed. Think Federer will need to serve really well to take out Wawrinka, or he will get blasted to Kingdom come. As per usual I hope Djokovic loses

There's a long gap between the 1st set of quarters and "Super Saturday" (had to say it), Cilic should be pretty well recovered. I think he could make a fist of this. Djokovic will certainly have to be on it.

Stan has changed the landscape somewhat, in my opinion.

I didn't really expect him to get as far as this when the draw was made but now he's in the SF, seemingly hitting some good form. This could be a tough match for Roger.

laverfan wrote:The interesting part is that the strategy used by Federer in Federer v Isner was almost identical to Wawrinka's in Wawrinka v Anderson. Luthi needs (and deserves) some credit too.

I'm confused by this - is Luthi coaching Wawrinka and not Magnus Norman?

bogbrush wrote:There's a long gap between the 1st set of quarters and "Super Saturday"

"Super Saturday" is on Friday though, isn't it? (But still 2 days off for Cilic, yes).

The scheduling at the USO is complete rubbish. Why is Halep having to play two days running, for Pete's sake?
  It was quite obvious that should even one of the four scheduled single matches go the distance yesterday that they would struggle to get through the programme. At least one of the matches should have been on Armstrong and it took the rain for the organisers to see sense and switch the Stan match.
  At Wimbledon, apart from the fact that the women have to play on both Monday and Tuesday the second week, the scheduling is player-friendly. At the USO the schedule is TV-friendly, with little thought given to the players.

PS - Just seen that BOTH women's semis are being played at night, meaning that Halep could finish around midnight. Plain daft and purely for TV.

^And at Roland Garros, the schedule is tailored around the audience being able to have a nice leisurely lunch and a glass of wine.

HM Murdock wrote:Stan has changed the landscape somewhat, in my opinion.

I didn't really expect him to get as far as this when the draw was made but now he's in the SF, seemingly hitting some good form. This could be a tough match for Roger.

He has hasn't he?

For argument's sake should he win the USO, the Murray/Wawrinka argument might be re-visited and for me with Stan coming out on top, might cause a forum meltdown!

I think with some the panache he has done it with causes me to have a wry smile. It's like he has smashed his way onto the scene at the top.

legendkillarV2 wrote:For argument's sake should he win the USO, the Murray/Wawrinka argument might be re-visited and for me with Stan coming out on top, might cause a forum meltdown!

I'd be tempted to agree.

3 slams, comprised of 1 AO, 1 RG and 1 USO would be impressive.

As much as people deride players pursuing better fitness, look how it has transformed Stan. Becoming fitter has enabled him to bring his attacking weapons to bear in a way he never could in his chubbier days.

YvonneT wrote:

laverfan wrote:The interesting part is that the strategy used by Federer in Federer v Isner was almost identical to Wawrinka's in Wawrinka v Anderson. Luthi needs (and deserves) some credit too.

I'm confused by this - is Luthi coaching Wawrinka and not Magnus Norman?

Luthi+Edberg coach Federer.
Luthi+Norman coach Wawrinka.

Think of Becker+Vajda coaching Djokovic.

bogbrush wrote:Does not the winners stat & 'exho' mode provide some explanation? If you're doing that then there will be errors. I think Federer - bar the Kohlschreiber match - is playing to the opponent.

I agree he is playing to the opponent, but Isner provided more resistance than Gasquet.

Gasquet seems to have run out gas yesterday, and similarly did Anderson.

Gasquest v Federer

Set 1 - Winners (4,17) , UEs (4,10), Aces (1,8), Pts Played (22, 32) - diff 10
Set 2 - Winners (1,18) , UEs (7,10), Aces (0,4), Pts played (23, 31) - diff 8
Set 3 - Winners (3,15) , UEs (3,1), Aces (0,4), Pts played (10, 25) - diff 15. (This is 'exho' mode - 1 UE for the set )

Berdych v Gasquet (for the match)

Winners - 37, 36
UEs - 38, 26
Aces - 12, 12

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day14/1407ms.html

Both SFs seem to promise a lot but may just become one-sided.

laverfan wrote:

YvonneT wrote:

laverfan wrote:The interesting part is that the strategy used by Federer in Federer v Isner was almost identical to Wawrinka's in Wawrinka v Anderson. Luthi needs (and deserves) some credit too.

I'm confused by this - is Luthi coaching Wawrinka and not Magnus Norman?

Luthi+Edberg coach Federer.
Luthi+Norman coach Wawrinka.

Think of Becker+Vajda coaching Djokovic.

Luthi is heavily involved with the Swiss Davis Cup Team - I think he may be Captain, so he's pretty close to both Federer and Wawrinka.  I think he's more Fed's coach than Wawrinka's, or at least their relationship is longer-established than with Wawrinka, and I'm sure he doesn't advise them how to beat each other.....?

YvonneT wrote:

bogbrush wrote:There's a long gap between the 1st set of quarters and "Super Saturday"

"Super Saturday" is on Friday though, isn't it? (But still 2 days off for Cilic, yes).

No, semi on Saturday and final on Monday isn't it?

bogbrush wrote:

YvonneT wrote:

bogbrush wrote:There's a long gap between the 1st set of quarters and "Super Saturday"

"Super Saturday" is on Friday though, isn't it? (But still 2 days off for Cilic, yes).

No, semi on Saturday and final on Monday isn't it?

Semis on Friday, final on Sunday:

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/schedule/eventschedule.html?promo=subnav

So Lüthi will sit with the crowd and keep himself neutral?

I'm sure he will be in Fed's box, guess Fed pays more him than Stan.

HM Murdock wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:For argument's sake should he win the USO, the Murray/Wawrinka argument might be re-visited and for me with Stan coming out on top, might cause a forum meltdown!

I'd be tempted to agree.

3 slams, comprised of 1 AO, 1 RG and 1 USO would be impressive.

As much as people deride players pursuing better fitness, look how it has transformed Stan. Becoming fitter has enabled him to bring his attacking weapons to bear in a way he never could in his chubbier days.

It would be tough - I think - to argue against Stan in that situation, and this will indeed cause forum meltdown.

That would be nothing compared to the fallout if he got to a career Slam while Novak was still stuck at RG, and certain irresponsible posters chose to argue he'd eclipsed the Serb.

HM Murdock wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

YvonneT wrote:

bogbrush wrote:There's a long gap between the 1st set of quarters and "Super Saturday"

"Super Saturday" is on Friday though, isn't it? (But still 2 days off for Cilic, yes).

No, semi on Saturday and final on Monday isn't it?

Semis on Friday, final on Sunday:

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/schedule/eventschedule.html?promo=subnav

Blimey! That's rearranged my weekend!

HM Murdock wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

YvonneT wrote:

bogbrush wrote:There's a long gap between the 1st set of quarters and "Super Saturday"

"Super Saturday" is on Friday though, isn't it? (But still 2 days off for Cilic, yes).

No, semi on Saturday and final on Monday isn't it?

Semis on Friday, final on Sunday:

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/schedule/eventschedule.html?promo=subnav

Quite, the sporting obscenity of Super Saturday has thankfully been consigned to the bin after several years when it was 'accommodated' by finding weather-related reasons to re-schedule the final on a Monday to stop at least one of the competitors dying on his feet.

Incredible to think, but when this absurdity was first introduced the women's final was sandwiched between the two men's SF's.  In 1984 Lendl edged past Cash in five torrid sets, then Navratilova played Evert over three sets, after which McEnroe beat Connors over five sets in a match that finished at 11.07.  The next day McEnroe wiped the floor with Lendl in a straight sets final.

Jahu wrote:So Lüthi will sit with the crowd and keep himself neutral?

I'm sure he will be in Fed's box, guess Fed pays more him than Stan.

Luithi usually sits in Fed's box when when Fed plays Stan. It must annoy the hell out of Stan and his team IMO.

I see Wawrinka being able to topple Federer again. He just seems to have the power to outplay him as he did in Paris. He also stretched Federer on a hard court at the O2. The only plus is Federer seems a little more focussed here than he was in Paris. Don't know if anyone noticed but after the first game when the players change ends and sip their drinks, Federer sat down, realised he should not have, gave a sheepish grin to the umpire and walked to the service line. Also I find Federer's serve tends to wobble now when it matters most. Just look at the difference between the first 6 rounds at WImbledon and the final.

If Stan goes through, it may be a better match with a chance he might get a win over Djokovic. Fed vs Novak = USO #2 for Novak from the onset.

It's fascinating, you can make a case for all four semi-finalists really, albeit it's slightly tougher for Cilic.

I really can't work out Fed / Stan. It could even be one-sided either way!

bogbrush wrote:That would be nothing compared to the fallout if he got to a career Slam while Novak was still stuck at RG, and certain irresponsible posters chose to argue he'd eclipsed the Serb.

Fortunately the intelligent and discerning posters that inhabit this forum are all aware that the recent obsession with career grand slams is from the same school of thought that elevates Olympic Gold to one of tennis' great achievements, and is therefore deeply flawed.

As for conversation about the semi finals, the worry for Federer is that even if he beats Stan, it could be brutal. If it ends up being a slugfest of the kind they serve up at the O2, there could be a physical price to pay, especially as they are likely to be the later of the two semis.

Fed will win in 3 sets guys, no worries!!!

He will avenge his FO loss (though that was a pre-arranged deal to let Stan go ahead and crush Djoko (no libel I hope?), though the pleasure of seeing Stan vaporize Djoko is the final, was priceless

HM Murdock wrote:
Fortunately the intelligent and discerning posters that inhabit this forum...

Am I on that group, or I'm just counted as sexy anti-discerning here

Jahu wrote:

HM Murdock wrote:
Fortunately the intelligent and discerning posters that inhabit this forum...

Am I on that group, or I'm just counted as sexy anti-discerning here

I long ago ceased to trying to understand what you might be.

Nice presser from Roger. Seems very chilled and gave a good insight to matches with him and Stan

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/34205735

I think Stan will win though and the event. I marvel at the way he's got himself, yet again, to the peak of his powers for the latter stages of a slam

^I'm not a violent man but there is something about Jimmy Fallon that consumes me with rage.

bogbrush wrote:It's fascinating, you can make a case for all four semi-finalists really, albeit it's slightly tougher for Cilic.

I really can't work out Fed / Stan. It could even be one-sided either way!

Agree here. I think the worry for Roger is that Stan is now highly motivated to beat him, because he knows he can - having done it before. Also, no matter that he'll always be seen at the No.2 Swiss, I think he gets a very big kick out of upsetting that apple cart

For me, when Stan's on it, in a slam, he's currently the best player in the world

Been quite impressed with Cilic. Seems to be a bit of belief in his play. However, Novak's return game will surely have him in trouble - but if the No.1 is slightly overcooked as has sometimes appeared the case this fortnight, then yea, could be an upset

I think another Novak v Stan final, with Stan winning. But if Roger was to win the semi easily, I think he too could win the final

I'm just not convinced about Novak's confidence at the latter stages of US Opens (relative to others) he's had too many disappointments for someone who's got as far as he has

Jahu wrote:So Lüthi will sit with the crowd and keep himself neutral?

I'm sure he will be in Fed's box, guess Fed pays more him than Stan.

Luthi is only paid by federer and is his official coach. He advises Stan because of their friendship and David cup ties- with Federer (his employer) blessing. Stan explained it in one of his pressers last year when he was asked about his relationship with federer. "He's my closest friend on tour. I can always go to him for advice. he told severin to help me anytime I needed it and he wasn't working with roger. Roger did that, I didn't ask. Thats the kind of friend he is"

When they play each other- luthi will be helping fed to beat Stan. That's his job

It was a big upset when Nishi took out Djoko in the USO semi last year and I can't see the Serb slipping up again.
Stan is far more confident about playing Rog these days and could have won at Wimbledon last year if he'd not been hampered by injury. I'm always a bit worried about how guys who have sailed through a tournament react when they hit a snag. On the other hand, Fed's straight-sets wins have, at least, kept him fresh. You could make a good case out for either of them.

I remember Andy Roddick saying at Wimbledon something along the lines of the first week of a slam being about form, the second week being about match ups.

That's what so intriguing about this collection of semi-finalists - the match ups really change the outlook.

The dynamics of a Cilic/Djoko v Fed match are totally different to a Cilic/Djoko v Stan match.

I think it's probably safe to say that both the Swiss would prefer Cilic to Djoko but who would worry Djoko the most? Federer, who is playing the better tennis but has weaknesses that can be exploited? Or Stan, who is less consistent but is capable of blasting right through Novak?

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/interviews/2015-09-09/an_interview_with_stan_wawrinka_quarterfinals.html?promo=next_interview


http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/interviews/2015-09-09/an_interview_with_roger_federer_quarterfinals.html?promo=previous_interview

It's Wawrinka's inconsistency which makes him the most intriguing player in the draw - if he's on he'll beat Fed, and he'll beat Djoko or Cilic.  Fed could beat just as easily beat Wawrinka, but I think he'd lose to Djoko 8/10 times and be favourite vs. Cilic, but not by a long way.  

Cilic is also inconsistent, but unlike Wawrinka he's only hit the heights at one tournament in his career and I think Djoko will stop him.  Djoko's problems at the USO are well-known, but they don't usually materialise in the SF.

I'd love Fed to do it, but I think Wawrinka vs. Djoko is the more mouth-watering proposition for a final.  

Funny to think that of the last 4 Fed is the only non-current holder of a slam, has that ever happened before?

laverfan wrote:Gasquet surrendered. Standing 3 meters behind the baseline when playing Federer is a folly.

No-one told Rafa...

In the end you always wish the other guy had got through because he was obviously below the standard of the guy you have to play.

Henman Bill wrote:

laverfan wrote:Gasquet surrendered. Standing 3 meters behind the baseline when playing Federer is a folly.

No-one told Rafa...

Rafa's been stepping up?

HMM, thanks for ignoring me

TRuffin, bit awkward for Luthi, but it's only business I guess.

HM Murdock wrote:I remember Andy Roddick saying at Wimbledon something along the lines of the first week of a slam being about form, the second week being about match ups. ...

That's what it is all about.  

At the moment Djokovic & Federer have Murray's number in Slams, Djokovic has Federer's number, Wawrinka seems to have Federer's number, while Wawrinka edges Djokovic (depends on how resilient & how much stamina Djokovic has).  

Most people have Nadal's number at the moment.  Nadal doesn't last long enough nowadays for us to assess the head to heads against Federer and Murray, although for certain Djokovic has his number.

TRuffin wrote:http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/interviews/2015-09-09/an_interview_with_stan_wawrinka_quarterfinals.html?promo=next_interview


http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/interviews/2015-09-09/an_interview_with_roger_federer_quarterfinals.html?promo=previous_interview

Interesting both - they obviously know the match is up for grabs.  Stan is very good-natured about dealing with a series of questions which were far more about Fed than about him, as well as an unsubtle reference to the Kirgios nonsense.  I also thought that Fed dealt very deftly with the left-field question about the clumsy police treatment of Blake.

Stan has big noses number in slams? based on what? one win on clay?

This isn't slow clay. the court is fast nough for big nose to take the ball early and take time away from stan so that he cant wind up his big shots.

big nose wins this in three tight sets.

I fear big nose will in the final too.

Zzzzz

Zzzzzz

On topic though, I have to give some real credit to Cilic, on the eve of this tourny a 4th rd ish loos looked on the cards and see him plummet down the rankings. Since wimby though hes guts it out and found some form, and gotten farther than I banked on him getting... This might be as far as he goes, second set blips aside Novaks been prime when push has come to shove
anyone know Cilics likely drop if he goes out Friday?

The other semi is anyones guess, just look at the 02 match, federers serve will be severely tesed. If this one goes Long, I agree that the victor is up a creek...

Watching the Wawrinka edition of the SABR, I do wonder if it be a bit like the switch hit in cricket, where Kevin Pietersen brought it out and he was heralded as this outlier genius. The only cricketer who cold have possibly had the ability to play it, and then a few years later it's a rather standard piece of T20 batsmanship.

I reckon Djokovic in 3 or 4, and Wawrinka in 4 or 5.

Possible final combinations
Most likely: Djokovic vs Wawrinka: I think Wawrinka edges it but depends on resilience and stamina of Djokovic.
Then: Djokovic vs Federer: Djokovic in four or five.
Then: Cilic vs Wawrinka: I think Wawrinka in four or five.
Then: Cilic vs Federer: Federer in three or four.

Probably yeah, it is a lot like the switch hit, good and bad.
Its definitely a surprise and hard to plan for, but the switch hit is something nobody ever does in test cricket, or when its close, its a thing you do in t20 or when youre looking to score fast.

The Sabre (spell it right lads!) is a surprise tactic when youre in the ascendency, its a big risk when its tight and can cost you a tb or a match, because its very risky

kingraf wrote:Watching the Wawrinka edition of the SABR, I do wonder if it be a bit like the switch hit in cricket, where Kevin Pietersen brought it out and he was heralded as this outlier genius. The only cricketer who cold have possibly had the ability to play it, and then a few years later it's a rather standard piece of T20 batsmanship.

I think along those lines, though unlike the switch hit this genuinely takes away a lot of time so you've got to be all there. I really don't see this being tried by the ordinary players, though doubtless it's already all the rage at club level.

I think it's somewhere between, but the point is that I hope it'll become a part of the game (as Fed did, to be fair).

temp - actually it is SABR (Sneak Attack By Roger - groan!) and I think it can be more than a novelty. It's a real headache for a nervous server and Fed used it at 3-1 in the Cincy final tie break.

bogbrush wrote:I think along those lines, though unlike the switch hit this genuinely takes away a lot of time so you've got to be all there. I really don't see this being tried by the ordinary players, though doubtless it's already all the rage at club level.

I hit an absolute belter a couple of weeks ago!

bogbrush wrote:

kingraf wrote:Watching the Wawrinka edition of the SABR, I do wonder if it be a bit like the switch hit in cricket, where Kevin Pietersen brought it out and he was heralded as this outlier genius. The only cricketer who cold have possibly had the ability to play it, and then a few years later it's a rather standard piece of T20 batsmanship.

I think along those lines, though unlike the switch hit this genuinely takes away a lot of time so you've got to be all there. I really don't see this being tried by the ordinary players, though doubtless it's already all the rage at club level.

I think it's somewhere between, but the point is that I hope it'll become a part of the game (as Fed did, to be fair).

To be fair, a proper switch hit is incredibly difficult. That's why nobody not named Glenn Maxwell tries it. Just think at the top, athletes are incredibly gifted, and not always completely aware of just how good they probably are. Stan, I suppose being an example.