US Open - day 13 - mens' final - preview and match commentary

First topic message reminder :

Djokovic v Wawrinka. I'm looking forward to this match - Djoko vs Stan has to be the best rivalry in the mens' game at the moment - they consistently serve up some great matches. Weird to think that Wawrinka was match point down against Dan Evans back in the 3rd round - that match was a real 'winning ugly' performance for Stan to get through, and since then, he's shown real resilience, and more than a few flashes of brilliance in beating Del Potro and Nishikori.

Djoko on the other hand has had a bizarre run to the final - all those opponents withdrawing, and the real oddity of the match with Monfils. Djokovic isn't looking too shabby at moment, but he's not had the real tests that Wawrinka has had - a real lack of matches with any intensity.

A win for either player would be significant - for Djokovic it would take him up to 13 slams, within striking distance of Nadal (and Sampras') haul of 14, and keep the dream of overhauling Federer as a long (but still possible) shot. For Wawrinka, it would be massive achievement - winning 3 slams at 3 separate tournaments. He's unlikely to complete the set of slams at Wimbledon, but still, he'd join some pretty illustrious company of winning 3 out of the 4 slams. If he wins I'd still put Murray ahead of him in terms of career achievements, but not by a big margin.

Onto the match itself, I'm going to go for Djokovic, in 5 sets, but I really wouldn't be surprised if Stan wins. I think this is a real 50:50 match.

Well done Stan. Honestly didn't think he would do it until he was actually going ahead in the match, but he played well. Kudos to someone I think Lydian he called the result around the QF stage or so.

That's twice now he's lost the first set to Djokovic, and gone on to win. I wonder how Murray, Nadal and Federer's record compares there in slam finals. That is pretty good from Stan.

Not lost a slam final, ever? Certainly knows how to bring the goods when it mattered.

Congrats Stan!

Not the best match, but all is well that ends well, and we had a happy ending.  Stan has proven yet again that he can consistently challenge Novak in slam matches - he has now beaten him at AO, RG and USO.

I wonder if Evans stayed up to watch...that smash where he decided to play safe and lost the point. I bet he wanted that back later. He would have won the match had he backed himself to make the smash - assuming the next point had gone the same, which of course it might not have.

Thinking about it: the tennis season is ridiculously long. So many players broke down in this US Open - at least in the Men's singles tournament. This year was especially exhausting considering it was Olympic year. Throw in the Davis Cup as well ...

Yes Stan the Man is the King of New York! Breaks Djokovic down to clinch his third Major championship, and only needs Wimbledon to complete career grand slam. Since the beginning of 2014 Stan has turned his career from a journeyman into a great one. Post 2014 Stan's only note able achievement was his Olympic gold medal. Now he's up to to 15 career titles, of which 3 are the big ones. He's also won his last 11 finals. If he can win a few more 1000s, he'll further cement his legacy. Interestingly he's eatables Brazilian legend Guga Kuerten in being 3 from 3 in major finals.

For Djokovic is yet more frustration in New York. By general consensus Djokovic is the greatest hard court player of all time yet he's now lost in the final at New York for a fifth time. Rather strange considering he's 6-0 in Australian open finals.

Jermaine2015 wrote:By general consensus Djokovic is the greatest hard court player of all time

???

Djokovic's Grand Slam final record.
Twenty one finals: won 12 lost 9: winning record 57 %.

Djokovic has lost more Grand Slam finals than Andy Murray: Murray has lost 8 (and won three).

Ivan Lendl lost eleven Grand SLam finals & won eight.

that is a debatable comment* but it was a decent summary overall I feel. not sure if he will ever win wimbledon though. his best is QF so far.

* referring to summer blues questioning Djokovic consensus of hard coat GOAT

Somehow I thought Djokovic already had 13. Maybe 13 was the number I heard if he wins this. So still on 12. Quite a long way to 17. Looks odds against of beating Federer's record at this point. Nadal not looking likely to mount a challenge any more either.

Henman Bill wrote:Somehow I thought Djokovic already had 13. Maybe 13 was the number I heard if he wins this. So still on 12. Quite a long way to 17. Looks odds against of beating Federer's record at this point. Nadal not looking likely to mount a challenge any more either.

No indication that Djokovic will get to 17 wins. An aim to match or better Sampras and Nadal's winning tally is still very much on the cards. It is also a question of how long Djokovic can last. I think he has maybe put too much effort on winning masters - he needs to maybe try to cut back a little on the effort he puts into his season so that he can focus better on the slams.

stats including today

Head to head overall: Djokovic 19-5 Stan

Masters 1000 Djokovic 10-0 Stan

Slams Djokovic 4-3 Stan

Slam finals Djokovic 0-2 Stan

All finals Djokovic 2-3 Stan

Stan has three wins that bought him three slam titles, and the other two were matches against a young Novak in 2006.

From 2007 to 2013 Novak won 14 matches in a row.

summerblues wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:By general consensus Djokovic is the greatest hard court player of all time

???

I don't teally think it's up for much debate TBH the only big event on hard courts to allude Djokovic is Cincinnati.

Henman Bill wrote: not sure if he will ever win wimbledon though. his best is QF so far.

If Magnus Norman can some how get Stan to come into net more on the grass he'd have a reasonable chance. His net play is pretty impressive.

Jermaine2015 wrote:

summerblues wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:By general consensus Djokovic is the greatest hard court player of all time

???

I don't teally think it's up for much debate TBH the only big event on hard courts to allude Djokovic is Cincinnati.

I am not sure he is better than Fed.  Fed has 9 slams, Djoko 8.  Also, while slams are more equal than they used to be, USO is still arguably bigger than AO, where Nole got most of his.

And then of course there are greats from the past, when there was only one HC slam and Masters (or Grand Prix or whatever it was called) did not count for so much.  To me, it is very far from certain Djoko is the best of them all.  He is right up there, but certainly not clearly the best.

Even with this loss, Djoko has had a better season than I expected.  Before the season started, I expected that he would win "1-2 slams" so technically I was not incorrect.  But he was certainly closer to winning three than to only getting one, and that is not what I imagined.

Also, I was expecting that by now we would start seeing clear signs of decline in both his and Andy's results.  That did not happen either (unless this Djokovic's slump turns out to be permanent).  It will be interesting how the next year goes.  At this point my best estimate for Nole is one slam, and same for Andy.  But I may be wrong again

At this year's USO, all participating members of the Big 4 lost to a non-Big-4 player.  Rafa lost to Pouille, Andy to Nishi and Novak to Stan.

This is the first time this has happened since the Australian Open 2005.  In that tournament, Federer lost to Safin in SF, Rafa lost to Hewitt in Rd4 and Novak lost to Safin in Rd1.  Of course, there was no Big 4 then, Roger was the only household name from among the four, and Rafa was starting to become visible.  Andy was not playing in AO05 - he would enter his first slam a few months later in Wimbledon.

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly things can change in sport. A few months ago we had a thread started about a what if fantasy scenario of djokovic winning 6 majors in a row, being proclaimed by media and players Goat over Federer, and dominating for the forseeable future.

A day or two later and since then- a shock early Wimbledon loss, no Olympic medal of any kind, and Unable to capitalize on what was virtually a walk over draw into the us open final. His massive lead gone and year end #1 at least not locked up.

I'm not suggesting he's not the best player in the world still when he's on form- clearly he is- But it does show you that the last peak of the mountain is always the hardest to climb and something is always pulling on the rope.

Some great views here

It's interesting (and comparing to their other slam performances of the last four years) that the US is now more or less the top 2's worst slam, certainly for Andy. Some may say the French for Novak, but prior to last year Rafa still reigned, i.e. Novak's only had one 'shock' loss at RG

But I think we do Novak a disservice if we read too much into this loss (likewise Andy). It was always laughable, as some media pundits thought after RG, that he was going to match or pass Roger's record by the end of next year. I'm not convinced it will happen at all. 5 or 6 slams is still a big haul at nearly 30 (which Novak will be next year)

It's still bloody tough to beat him or Andy these days (ask Kei!!) and when you do, you inevitable fall flat during the following match or win the event

As a fan of Stan way back when (remember that classic first match under the roof at Wimby with Murray??!!) it's great to see him up there now with the greats

It's also interesting that these days Novak's a bad match up for Andy. Andy's a bad match up for Stan. And Stan's a bad match up for Novak.

All generalisations of course, Stan was beating Andy for a couple of years up to the French and of course Andy has two slams, courtesy of Novak plus Novak's head to head with Stan is very one-sided still

But the dynamic of this top three is quite fascinating. It's a case of who's meeting who. I'm totally confident that Andy would have beaten Stan, but also equally confident he would have lost to Novak!!

Or is it? Maybe it's a case of who's mentally and physically the fittest, i.e. as it always has been since the days of Connors and Rosewall

Enjoyed the final. At least it wasn't a one sided Djokovic walkover!

A terrific win for Stan the Man. Agree with TR (see above) that things can turn round amazingly fast in sport. Can't help thinking Murray missed a trick here. Even if he'd lost to Djoko in the final he would have gained a lot of points on him.
Even so, with Djoko having to defend wins in the next two Slams the number one slot may be up for grabs in the first half of 2017.
One interesting point. It's been suggested that it was going to be hard for Djoko to win Slams from now on due to advancing years. Then he goes and loses a GS final to a 31-year-old !
With Murray and Djoko both reaching 30 next year, are we going to see a whole bunch of 30-something GS wins?

A lot is being made of Stan's age, but the real difference between say Stan vs Djokovic/Murray is the wear and tear at this point of their respective careers. It's no secret Stan's career has only recently reached any sort of consistent level. Up until 2013, Stan had only ever made 2 QFs in the majors. So despite being 31 years old, he's not put as many miles on yhe clock as Djokovic and Murray(and obviously Roger and Nadal). So in other terms Stan could be considered a fresh 30 something whereas the others could be considered battle wounded 30 somethings.

Cracking match, the ball striking ability of Stan and retrieving ability of Novak is amazing.

It strikes me that outside the big 4, players and coaches have been busy the past 2 years working on strategies to counter them. We are starting to see this with the emergence of other players taking the game away from them at times. Point building is dead, it's about massive hitting or serving into the corners and then a FH/BH put away. It's a simple effective strategy that guys like Wawrinka and Pouille are perfecting, and Delpo before them. Expect to see more of this approach in future. It's time guys like Nadal took note and adapted accordingly!

Interesting comments all, some reasonable predictions for next year for slams? I would suggest

Stan 0-1 slams (most likely 0)
Rafa 0-1 slams (most likely 0).
Roger 0-1 slams (most likely 0).
Novak 1-2 slams (most likely 1).
Murray 1-2 slams (most likely 1).
All others 1-2 (most likely 1).

I'd say Federer's best chances are Wimbledon and New York. He's easy meat on the slower surfaces these days.

Rafa still be second favourite at Paris, unless his form next year nose dives totally. 70/2 is still pretty intimidating.

Djokovic is a shout at all the majors, but again depends on his wrist problems.

Murray probably realistic target is Wimbledon

Stan's best events are probably Australia and Paris.

Del Potro is the unknown. Great hard court armoury but he's up and down. Probably better on grass than clay these days.

Henman Bill wrote:Interesting comments all, some reasonable predictions for next year for slams? I would suggest

Stan 0-1 slams (most likely 0)
Rafa 0-1 slams (most likely 0).
Roger 0-1 slams (most likely 0).
Novak 1-2 slams (most likely 1).
Murray 1-2 slams (most likely 1).
All others 1-2 (most likely 1).

So most likely only 3 slams will have a winner next year?

Djokovic 1-2
Murray 1-2
Stan 0-1
Rafa 0-1 (final shot at the French)
Fed 0-1 (final shot at Wimbledon, if he comes back to form)
Others - perhaps Del Po, Cilic or someone unlikely could win one.

I'm not convinced about Roger winning any more slams

I think his injury blighted season makes him distinctly behind the Top 3.

I still think it's hard to put forward a case for a new slam winner. I'd love Nishikori to do it, but he needs to be seeded where he can avoid a (potential) Murray / Stan / Novak situation - his smaller frame makes this a must. So he really has to wait until at least two of them are no longer around.

Possible with Raonic, but I don't think his game is flexible enough when needed

Hard to see anyone else next year. We need to forget the usual French ones and Dimitrov. Thiem etc, still have to get their true slam legs

Guest82 wrote:Djokovic 1-2
Murray 1-2
Stan 0-1
Rafa 0-1 (final shot at the French)
Fed 0-1 (final shot at Wimbledon, if he comes back to form)
Others - perhaps Del Po, Cilic or someone unlikely could win one.

Del Potro's a good shout actually. Amazingly, he might now be the next best bet outside the Top 3. I think Cilic showed that when he's in the spotlight, he doesn't have it, i.e. after his Cincy win

An unknown could get a good draw and get to the final, but if they're playing the Top 3 they will lose

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:Interesting comments all, some reasonable predictions for next year for slams? I would suggest

Stan 0-1 slams (most likely 0)
Rafa 0-1 slams (most likely 0).
Roger 0-1 slams (most likely 0).
Novak 1-2 slams (most likely 1).
Murray 1-2 slams (most likely 1).
All others 1-2 (most likely 1).

So most likely only 3 slams will have a winner next year?

Look on the positive side - there could be 9 winners of the next four slams.

But yes you are correct Henman Bill should have ensured a minimum of four - but I hear he is living at high altitude on a diet of chiles - and that does strange things to the brain.

What I said was not wrong.

Consider the following example.

3 red balls and 1 blue ball are put into 4 envelopes and shuffled and handed out at random to four people Rafa, Roger, Novak and Andy.

Rafa may have 0 blue balls in his envelope or 1, but most likely 0.
Roger may have 0 blue balls in his envelope or 1, but most likely 0.
Novak may have 0 blue balls in his envelope or 1, but most likely 0.
Andy may have 0 blue balls in his envelope or 1, but most likely 0.

The sum total of the most likely should not have to equal the sum total of balls.

Another example: to everyone individually they will most likely not win the lottery on Saturday. Everyone has a "most likely" probability of zero lottery wins. But someone will win. (I'll define "win" as 5 balls or more out of 6.)

I'm not sure if you're just teasing me here, maybe you already know this.

Henman Bill wrote:What I said was not wrong.

Consider the following example.

3 red balls and 1 blue ball are put into 4 envelopes and shuffled and handed out at random to four people Rafa, Roger, Novak and Andy.

Rafa may have 0 blue balls in his envelope or 1, but most likely 0.
Roger may have 0 blue balls in his envelope or 1, but most likely 0.
Novak may have 0 blue balls in his envelope or 1, but most likely 0.
Andy may have 0 blue balls in his envelope or 1, but most likely 0.

The sum total of the most likely should not have to equal the sum total of balls.

Another example: to everyone individually they will most likely not win the lottery on Saturday. Everyone has a "most likely" probability of zero lottery wins. But someone will win. (I'll define "win" as 5 balls or more out of 6.)

I'm not sure if you're just teasing me here, maybe you already know this.

Balls.

Amazing that Stan was running considerably more than Novak (certainly up to the end of the 3rd set) and more often than not was winning the long rallies. It seemed he would just dial up the power the longer a rally went on. Its clear that Norman has got him in great shape. He barely looked to be breathing after some of the longer rallies whereas Novak was gasping for air.

Not the highest standard tournament I didn't think. No real standout matches in the later rounds and too many injuries disrupting matches. Stan though was clearly the best player in the tournament and a deserved 3rd slam. Second oldest player to win the US I believe in the Open era.

Lydian's 850 theory proving bang on the money for Novak so far. Australia already promises to be very interesting.

Henman Bill wrote:What I said was not wrong.

Consider the following example.

3 red balls and 1 blue ball are put into 4 envelopes and shuffled and handed out at random to four people Rafa, Roger, Novak and Andy.

Rafa may have 0 blue balls in his envelope or 1, but most likely 0.
Roger may have 0 blue balls in his envelope or 1, but most likely 0.
Novak may have 0 blue balls in his envelope or 1, but most likely 0.
Andy may have 0 blue balls in his envelope or 1, but most likely 0.

The sum total of the most likely should not have to equal the sum total of balls.

Another example: to everyone individually they will most likely not win the lottery on Saturday. Everyone has a "most likely" probability of zero lottery wins. But someone will win. (I'll define "win" as 5 balls or more out of 6.)

I'm not sure if you're just teasing me here, maybe you already know this.

Except it is not probability - it is guess work ...  so when you said "0 - 1 slams, but most likely 0" and "1-2 slams, but mostly likely 1",  you could have gone the other way and said "0-1 slams, but most likely 1" or "1-2 slams, but most likely 2".

Henman Bill wrote:What I said was not wrong.

Consider the following example.

3 red balls and 1 blue ball are put into 4 envelopes and shuffled and handed out at random to four people Rafa, Roger, Novak and Andy.

Rafa may have 0 blue balls in his envelope or 1, but most likely 0.
Roger may have 0 blue balls in his envelope or 1, but most likely 0.
Novak may have 0 blue balls in his envelope or 1, but most likely 0.
Andy may have 0 blue balls in his envelope or 1, but most likely 0.

The sum total of the most likely should not have to equal the sum total of balls.

Another example: to everyone individually they will most likely not win the lottery on Saturday. Everyone has a "most likely" probability of zero lottery wins. But someone will win. (I'll define "win" as 5 balls or more out of 6.)

I'm not sure if you're just teasing me here, maybe you already know this.

There is an actual chance of nobody winning the lottery. There is no chance of 1/4 slams going unclaimed

Here is another way of looking at it if we follow HB's logic (sorry - just using this as an example):

Australian Open 2017:  Most likely winner: no-one.  ... as all are more likely to lose than to win (each having less than an estimated 50 % chance of winning at this point in time).
French Open 2017: Most likely winner: no-one.
Wimbledon 2017: Most likely winner: no-one.
US Open 2017: Most likely winner: no-one.

Hence most likely outcome for next year: none of the slams will be won.


Aside to HB: this is actually quite interesting because it shows how logic and mathematics can give rise to nonsensical outcomes. It shows how intelligent people can be completely misled through what appears to be solid reasoning, and the limitations associated with algorithmic intelligence (in the field of AI).

The logic that the most likely winner is no-one it absolutely does not follow that none of the slams will be won, a quite incorrect use of the word hence.

You have also confused "most likely" with ">50%". Something can be most likely while being under 50%. Whoever is the bookies favorite is most likely to win, even though there odds in most cases, are under 50%.

If anyone really wants to prove me wrong, forget the more complex lottery and slam winning probability arguments, and concentrate on my example of balls in envelopes. That is the more elegant and simple one to understand the point I'm making.

How's this, my prediction for next year:

Stan 0.2 slams
Rafa 0.2
Roger 0.2
Novak 1.2
Murray 1.1
All others 1.1
Total 4.0.

It is a probability distribution. Saying that Stan will win 0.2 slams next year is like saying there is a 20% chance he'll win 1 slam (slight oversimplification since there is a non-zero chance he could win >1).

That explains in another way how I am thinking of it.

In the sense it is like a rounding issue. 1.333 + 1.333 + 1.333 = 4 but if we round to the nearest 1 we get 1 + 1 + 1 = 4. I think my numbers all tend to round down hence 1 slam has been lost from all the rounded down bits.

Well, then is a fun conversation to get us geeks through to the Davis Cup at the weekend.

These types of probability distributions I can absolutely guarantee are used in modelling the world over, including in sports betting, but probably more in commercial (professional - B2B) markets rather than to your average punter.

I hope we can agree that there are issues applying probability theory to specific events (or a low number of events) and the language used in communicating the conclusions drawn from it.

Finally been able to see some highlights of the men's US final. I was particularly struck by Stan's fitness and his defensive skills. OK, we know all about his shotmaking. But it looked as if he was prepared to go toe to toe (blister to blister?) with Djoko and really slug it out.

Nore Staat wrote:I hope we can agree that there are issues applying probability theory to specific events (or a low number of events) and the language used in communicating the conclusions drawn from it.

Well that seems reasonable.

sirfredperry wrote:Finally been able to see some highlights of the men's US final. I was particularly struck by Stan's fitness and his defensive skills. OK, we know all about his shotmaking. But it looked as if he was prepared to go toe to toe (blister to blister?) with Djoko and really slug it out.
 

And that's the key to beating Djokovic, just as it was the key to beating Nadal when he was at his physical peak. You have to be able to hang with them physically in the long rallies until the opportunity arises to strike. Federer who has as much offensive fire power as anyone can't hang with Djokovic long enough to create those openings.

I think Fed's backhand also causes difficulty as well. He doesn't have the power down the line of Stan. That said, I'm fairly convinced that Fed in US15 form would have beaten Djoko US16 in straights.

As a Murray fan, I was fairly relaxed about him losing to Kei (on the basis I didn't think he would be able to go to war with Stan and Novak back to back after a long QF). However, having watched the SF and final I'm left with the feeling he threw this one away. Had he avoided the mental meltdown against Kei, I think he'd have had enough to beat Stan and Novak was clearly there for the taking.

2015 Fed, would probably have won, because the latter stages were in conditions that Roger loves and Novak hates

Roger, must be extremely frustrated to miss the first hot US Open in years

Why does Jamie Baker get a job with the BBC? He's a complete nobody who achieved very little in his career.