USO finals

First topic message reminder :

Much better that it's Anderson in the final than PCB. If Anderson has a hot serving day and is really on he can cause some problems. Sadly I think the pressure of his first (and likely only ever) GS final will be too much and he'll play badly.

Not massively convinced by Rafa, as said below he's standing too far back. He can only beat what's in front of him, but to win a grand slam beating the world number 28 as the highest rank opponent is quite lucky.

Didn't see the match but sounds like Delpo fell off a cliff. Anderson shouldn't go away physically at least. If Anderson really shows up it could be interesting, my feeling is the pressure will be too much.

Well done to Nadal of course - #16 is an extraordinary achievement, and #16, let alone #15, must have seemed impossible as recently as less than 12 months ago. What an odd year 2017 has been on the ATP - and it's not over yet.

Fedal's achievements this year have opened up a very wide range of possibilities; from them being the players to beat once more on their preferred types of surface (Fed faster, Nadal slower), to at least one of the current injured absentees roaring back fresh and having a winning start to the season.  Two things of note are that (i) we are reminded of the weakness of Fed's back and (ii) Nadal has managed something he has never done before this season - combined appearing in both the AO final and the USO final.  The tantallising question for Nadal and his team is whether that means he has put his injury problems behind him, or just managed to kick the can along the road a bit longer aided by the absence of genuine contenders at the USO. I think more the former than the latter, but outside his circle, and possibly within it, one never knows.

For the immediate future, Nadal's current lead of 2,000 pts makes him close to a shoe-in for y/e #1 (another big well done if it happens), and, looking forward and more tentatively he looks as though he's set to be the man/one of the men to beat at the Australian Open as well as perennially being the man to beat on clay.  Unlike sfp and Naxroy, I'd be very surprised if he's got another deep run at Wimbledon on his resume.  All that said, it's probably unwise to look too far past the New Year, beyond remembering always to write Nadal off at your peril.  A fit Fed is still a genius with the beating of nearly everyone on tour on his day and his better surfaces - but it's obvious that his back will flare up again, the only question is when (and if that question starts lodging itself in his mind it will not help him...); he will forever need to manage his schedule sparingly.

Despite the fun and games of the dinosaurs ruling the swamp once more, men's tennis desperately needs someone younger to break through to take a slam and start writing the story; much better if they are seen to do it whilst Fedal (and any of the injury returnees) are in reasonable nick, rather than obviously taking advantage of their age-induced decrepitude.

it is true that fedal + djokovic times are lasting too much (good long 13 years already)

these guys have won 43 out of 52 possible slams since nadal appeared in the scene, what means that over 13 years the rest of the field had 9 slams to share.

its obvious that their longevity on top has denied a couple of the expected renewals that a top 10 list usually experiments over 12 years

Many congratulations to Rafa. From impending doom of last year to the two slam wins and regaining No 1 this year. What a resurgence! The future looks much brighter for Rafa now and who knows what the future holds now. Commiserations to Anderson but I always felt it would prove too much for him to acheive. He needed a lesser mortal in the final but it was not to be. Still at least he can now hold claim to being a slam finalist.

Well done again Rafa and to all his fans.

The big regret for Nadal would have been Wimbledon. Genuinely believe he had a strong chance and was playing and moving much better than the previous years of grass struggle, but Muller served out of his mind (Nadal's return position did help Muller). He can't have too many regrets about the Australian Open where Federer played lights out stuff when he went a break down in the final set.

yeah, any rafa fan felt that this wimnledon he could have gone the distance... but its been 6 years since last final there, so its obvious that it is nowadays the slam where any top100 player can beat him in a good day

I doubt he can win there again, but I do feel he has another hardcourt slam in him, and most probably another RG too

anyway, things change so drastically from year to year that anything is possible

he is 31 so the chances get reduced fast

naxroy wrote:yeah, any rafa fan felt that this wimnledon he could have gone the distance... but its been 6 years since last final there, so its obvious that it is nowadays the slam where any top100 player can beat him in a good day

I doubt he can win there again, but I do feel he has another hardcourt slam in him, and most probably another RG too

anyway, things change so drastically from year to year that anything is possible

he is 31 so the chances get reduced fast

I agree with most of that - the temptation is, as it were, to order him up two more RG's, but as the last 12 months have shown, and as the 12 months between June 2014 and June 2015 also showed in a different way, a helluva lot, good and bad, can happen to one of these guys in one year let alone two.  I think that the extraordinary dominance at different times of Federer, then Nadal, then Djokovic, has mucked up our sense of understanding of how fine the margins are at this level of the game, particularly since it is a gladiatorial knock-out sport where your opponent can directly undermine your own effectiveness (as opposed to running against the clock).  It's worth remembering that between 1969 and 2004 there were three occasions on which someone won 3 or more slams in one calendar year (Laver, Connors, Wilander); between 2004 and 2017 it has happened six times, and each of Fed/Nadal/Djoko have done it.  One can speculate as to why that is so, but my point is that we have gotten into the mindset that whoever is the top dog is set to dominate the next few slams without a fair appreciation of how extraordinarily difficult that is.  I thought that a deficit of three would be too much for Nadal in 2014, but now he has reeled off two in 2017, a year in which he has sustained Slam winning/finalist form from AO to USO for the first time, and all his major opponents have physical weaknesses, crazily it looks more achievable to me than it did then (albeit still hugely difficult - exceeding the entire career haul of Murray or Wawrinka, or matching Courier if he is to overhaul Fed - who has himself surprised me by showing he can still win a slam and thus budge the target).

barrystar wrote:

naxroy wrote:yeah, any rafa fan felt that this wimnledon he could have gone the distance... but its been 6 years since last final there, so its obvious that it is nowadays the slam where any top100 player can beat him in a good day

I doubt he can win there again, but I do feel he has another hardcourt slam in him, and most probably another RG too

anyway, things change so drastically from year to year that anything is possible

he is 31 so the chances get reduced fast

I agree with most of that - the temptation is, as it were, to order him up two more RG's, but as the last 12 months have shown, and as the 12 months between June 2014 and June 2015 also showed in a different way, a helluva lot, good and bad, can happen to one of these guys in one year let alone two.  I think that the extraordinary dominance at different times of Federer, then Nadal, then Djokovic, has mucked up our sense of understanding of how fine the margins are at this level of the game, particularly since it is a gladiatorial knock-out sport where your opponent can directly undermine your own effectiveness (as opposed to running against the clock).  It's worth remembering that between 1969 and 2004 there were three occasions on which someone won 3 or more slams in one calendar year (Laver, Connors, Wilander); between 2004 and 2017 it has happened six times, and each of Fed/Nadal/Djoko have done it.  One can speculate as to why that is so, but my point is that we have gotten into the mindset that whoever is the top dog is set to dominate the next few slams without a fair appreciation of how extraordinarily difficult that is.  I thought that a deficit of three would be too much for Nadal in 2014, but now he has reeled off two in 2017, a year in which he has sustained Slam winning/finalist form from AO to USO for the first time, and all his major opponents have physical weaknesses, crazily it looks more achievable to me than it did then (albeit still hugely difficult - exceeding the entire career haul of Murray or Wawrinka, or matching Courier if he is to overhaul Fed - who has himself surprised me by showing he can still win a slam and thus budge the target).

Yes the assumption seems to be after every slam to assume the winner is going to win the next three or four. I wouldn't have believed after RG last year that Djokovic wouldn't have won another slam by now, nor would I have believed then that Rafa and Rog would have won another 2 each.

As things stand, you would give Rafa a chance in Australia and probably make him favourite for RG. Beyond that I don't think we can judge. Obviously Djokovic could come back at 100% and win AO & RG with a bit to spare...or not. It's why we keep on watching I guess.

apart form the possibility of djokovic returning in top form, and also murray of course, I have the feeling that after 2017, A.Zverev will take a step ahead in slams, dont know if far enough as to win one, but at least to compete for them

the same goes for thiem

maybe still too soon for shapovalov or the likes... but who knows.

so all in all, even if nadal keeps the good form, I doubt he will ever repeat a year like 2017. so that fits with one or two (as much) more slams for him

to be fair to Rafa he won the title fairly comfortably. lost a few sets but always the first set and then cruised to an easy 2nd (and 3rd and 4th) set after that. maybe with more competition he might have been pushed harder but still won.