US Open 2020

First topic message reminder :

Devoid of many top players or not, the USO starts on Monday.

I know some will feel that this is a devalued Slam with so many absentees. But others might reckon there are no asterisks (*) in sport. Jan Kodes, for example, is still 1973 Wimbledon champion despite the mass boycott.

What it does mean is that Djoko looks an almost certain winner in New York this time. I would have put him as favourite even if there had been a full field of players. What does that make him now? Super-favourite, mega-favourite, a shoo-in?

The bad news for Kyle Edmund is that he could face Djoko in the second round. Murray starts against Nishioka and could later meet Dan Evans. Konta begins against Heather Watson, while Cameron Norrie has a tough one against Diego Schwartzman.

Apart from seeing how far Murray can go, probably the only interest in the men's is to see just who will emerge to play Djoko in the final. Or have I got it wrong?

The women's Slams have been unpredictable of late even when everyone turns up so gawd knows who's likely to win this time. You could argue it's all set up for Serena but I don't think anyone is afraid of her any more and each of her recent Slam final performances have been really poor.

Amazing final full of incredible rallies, world-class shots and astounding mental strength. Full credit to Thiem for coming through despite being two sets down, a break down in the final set, and a mini-break down in the TB, as well as the injury which gradually engulfed him in the final set. Zverev had the match in his hands but couldn't close it out.

Zverev needs to control his nerves on his serve but with the ageing into retirement of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic he should be there or thereabouts to compete for many more slam titles.  Thiem wins on his fourth attempt and does it the hard way - coming back from two sets to love down.

I think had Thiem lost after fighting back from 2 sets down, his career could’ve been irreparably damaged. Granted he’s the heir apparent to Nadal at Roland Garros, but the Spaniard hasn’t shown any willingness to abdicate his throne.

Thiem was well below par in the first two sets but he showed great guts to win that tiebreak especially as it appeared he had hit a wall physically. He was unable to hit through his backhand or a decent first serve but found a 132mph serve out of nowhere at 3-3 and then ripped through two backhand passes at 6-6. Having said that Zverev helped him out with two double faults and a very tentative tiebreak in general.

Despite not playing his best tonight I did feel it was Thiem's time and I think he has enough now to consistently challenge the Big 3 for Slam titles.

Atila wrote:I'll put my head on the block and say, I've got a feeling that Zverev is going to do it tonight.

Ah well, I can't be right all the time.  

Congratulations to Dominic Thiem on his first Slam win.

Not the highest quality match but Thiem did well to come back; Zverev however needs to do something about his serving, 15 double faults isn't going to allow you to any grand slam finals.

It sounds an amazing, if somewhat scrappy, match.

Not seen any of it yet and I left following the scores as Thiem started the fightback by getting it back on serve in the third.

I guess in some ways the turning point was Thiem avoiding a 6-1 in the second and showing Zverev that he would have to fight for it.

But for both guys to serve for it in the 5th and then not get it - what drama. I was always wondering just when the USO would be settled on a final set tiebreak. Pretty awful way to lose.

I think it's fitting that Thiem should be the man to end the six-year wait for a new men's GS champ. He's been the closest to it. I think defeat last night would have been devastating for him.

Well it was a great final. Two pretty evenly matched players and both fighting their own personal handicaps with Thiem hampered with an injury and Zverev hampered by his serving demons. It had everything. The great comeback, the drama of a fifth set tie-break and many fabulous passing shots and winners from impossible positions. True the quality may not have been at the absolute tops but like I said we are matching them against the standards of tennis legends that have been at the top of the sport now for well over a decade. It was one of those matches where it was a shame there had to be a loser but I was glad to see Dominic Thiem win his first slam title after getting close so many times and showed mental toughness to hang in there when all looked lost. Zverev's time will come but he most get his serving issues sorted out.

Ok, so there were no spectators. But we've managed to have a Slam in a crazy year for sport.

It could be argued that Djoko's disqualification was the making of the men's tournament. After six years we have a new GS winner after a topsy-turvy final with an exciting climax.

There was also a fine final in the women's where the stand-out factor was the rise of the supermums.

Tennis, or any sport, without fans is not ideal. But the alternative at the moment is no tennis, and no sport, at all. We can all follow the scores and, if possible, watch matches live. This is the best we can do at the moment.

Managed to get to see some of the games and great to have live action back.

As for the result, can’t stop myself thinking that any of the top 4 (with taking AM at his pre-injury standard) would have won the men’s at a canter. I completely get that it’s great to have a new grand slam winner but would suggest that this one comes with a very large asterisk

bradman99.94 wrote:Managed to get to see some of the games and great to have live action back.

As for the result, can’t stop myself thinking that any of the top 4 (with taking AM at his pre-injury standard) would have won the men’s at a canter. I completely get that it’s great to have a new grand slam winner but would suggest that this one comes with a very large asterisk

I’m guessing you don’t watch much tennis? Djokovic played the us open and screwed it up for himself. Federer is about 40 and hasn’t won the us open in over a decade. Sorry to break it to you but pre surgery Murray isn’t coming back. Maybe Nadal would’ve won, but he didn’t play so it’s irrelevant.
And put some respect on Thiem and Zverev. Thiem had made 3 slam finals and the tout finals final. Zverev is the only man other than the big boys with 3 or more masters titles - he’s also won the tour finals. Thiem and Zverev are very much as worthy as the top 4.

Just caught some more of the highlights - in some ways it reminds me of that Gaudio v Coria French Open final back in 2004 (showing my age a bit here!) - not a high quality classic, but compelling, tense and ultimately unpredictable, with some enjoyable rallies thrown in amongst some less stellar stuff. Given what was at stake for both players the tension was hardly surprising.

Is it too simplistic to think if only Zverev hadn't done all those double-faults he could have won this? I was really impressed with his mindset and tactics in the first couple of sets whilst Thiem only really got going towards end of 2nd set. Given how close Zverev came and how positive he was in this final, if he can sort out this 2nd serve issue surely he's going to be in a few more slam finals (and winning some) in the next few years.

Getting this first slam out of the way will help Thiem in his quest for supremacy at Roland Garros, though I wonder if he has picked up injury from final and may struggle to recover for this year's rapidly approaching rescheduled French Open - I reckon Djokovic will come roaring back - he'll feel he's got a point to prove after his default.

MrInvisible wrote:... this year's rapidly approaching rescheduled French Open ...

There I was thinking that was it for this season but no you're right, Roland Garros has been rescheduled for 21 September – 11 October.

Checking Nadal's Schedule we have:
Rome Master (September 14 – 21)
Rolland Garros (September 27 – October 11)
ATP Tour Finals, London (November 15 – 22)

So we should have Djokovic, Nadal, Thiem, Zverev and others participating.

The Rome Masters has started and both Djokovic and Nadal are entered but Thiem and Zverev are skipping it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Italian_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles

I think MrI is right that Djoko will come roaring back at the French. But as long as Rafa is fit he's going to be winning at RG.

The thing that could derail him this year is lack of matches. How's he going to fare in a long five-setter? On the other hand, is anyone going to push him that far?

Yes, Thiem may be feeling the effects of the USO. Best thing he can do is get in the opposite side of the draw from Rafa. But then he could still face Djoko in the semis.

Jeff Navarro wrote:

bradman99.94 wrote:Managed to get to see some of the games and great to have live action back.

As for the result, can’t stop myself thinking that any of the top 4 (with taking AM at his pre-injury standard) would have won the men’s at a canter. I completely get that it’s great to have a new grand slam winner but would suggest that this one comes with a very large asterisk

I’m guessing you don’t watch much tennis? Djokovic played the us open and screwed it up for himself. Federer is about 40 and hasn’t won the us open in over a decade. Sorry to break it to you but pre surgery Murray isn’t coming back. Maybe Nadal would’ve won, but he didn’t play so it’s irrelevant.
And put some respect on Thiem and Zverev. Thiem had made 3 slam finals and the tout finals final. Zverev is the only man other than the big boys with 3 or more masters titles - he’s also won the tour finals. Thiem and Zverev are very much as worthy as the top 4.

Whereas I’m guessing that I do watch a bit of tennis and am aware that Djokovic played the US Open and that Federer is about 40 and hasn’t won the US Open for a decade and that Murray will never recover the playing standard of pre surgery; I’m also aware that Nadal maybe would’ve won but didn’t actually play. Right, now we’ve got past the bit about you accepting that others may have different opinions to yourself but may still have valid opinions (though in fairness, I do tend to focus my interest in lower echelons of British tennis).

Thiem and Zverev are fine players that I do respect and enjoy watching with, as you rightly point out, very fine records in the highest standard of tournaments, however, I don’t agree that they’re ‘as worthy as the top 4’. The objective facts support my argument in as much as neither of them have yet won a GS Final against them. The only way Djokovic wasn’t going to win was either by default, which obviously he found a way of doing, or breaking a limb.
It’s purely my opinion of course but I contend that had any one of the top 4 played (as in singularly, not as a group) and A, not been dumb and arrogant enough to recklessly belt the ball in the general direction of a line judge and get defaulted, and B not needed drastic surgery with a corresponding (and understandable) loss of standard, then any one of them would have won it at a canter.

Out of interest (and I promise genuinely) do you think either would have beaten Djokovic?

Djokovic wasn't in top form during the tournament so it's not beyond the realms of possibility that he could have gone on to lose to Carreno Busta let alone Zverev, Thiem or Medvedev.

bradman99.94 wrote:

Jeff Navarro wrote:

bradman99.94 wrote:Managed to get to see some of the games and great to have live action back.

As for the result, can’t stop myself thinking that any of the top 4 (with taking AM at his pre-injury standard) would have won the men’s at a canter. I completely get that it’s great to have a new grand slam winner but would suggest that this one comes with a very large asterisk

I’m guessing you don’t watch much tennis? Djokovic played the us open and screwed it up for himself. Federer is about 40 and hasn’t won the us open in over a decade. Sorry to break it to you but pre surgery Murray isn’t coming back. Maybe Nadal would’ve won, but he didn’t play so it’s irrelevant.
And put some respect on Thiem and Zverev. Thiem had made 3 slam finals and the tout finals final. Zverev is the only man other than the big boys with 3 or more masters titles - he’s also won the tour finals. Thiem and Zverev are very much as worthy as the top 4.

Whereas I’m guessing that I do watch a bit of tennis and am aware that Djokovic played the US Open and that Federer is about 40 and hasn’t won the US Open for a decade and that Murray will never recover the playing standard of pre surgery; I’m also aware that Nadal maybe would’ve won but didn’t actually play. Right, now we’ve got past the bit about you accepting that others may have different opinions to yourself but may still have valid opinions (though in fairness, I do tend to focus my interest in lower echelons of British tennis).

Thiem and Zverev are fine players that I do respect and enjoy watching with, as you rightly point out, very fine records in the highest standard of tournaments, however, I don’t agree that they’re ‘as worthy as the top 4’. The objective facts support my argument in as much as neither of them have yet won a GS Final against them. The only way Djokovic wasn’t going to win was either by default, which obviously he found a way of doing, or breaking a limb.
It’s purely my opinion of course but I contend that had any one of the top 4 played (as in singularly, not as a group) and A, not been dumb and arrogant enough to recklessly belt the ball in the general direction of a line judge and get defaulted, and B not needed drastic surgery with a corresponding (and understandable) loss of standard, then any one of them would have won it at a canter.

Out of interest (and I promise genuinely) do you think either would have beaten Djokovic?

I fully agree.

Sport is like a river where it keeps on running passing landmarks and structures which I take to be players/sportsmen. It will pass grand landmarks of great grandeur (the likes of Federer, Djokovic and Nadal) and others of impressive stature (the likes of Murray and Wawrinka) and then on to lesser landmarks where you come on to the likes of Thiem and Zverev. However, they do have time to improve and may win a few slams between them but a vacuum will be left by the greats of 2005-2019/20 when their careers end.

There will be new No 1's and multiple slam winners but they'd have to be remarkable to equal the feats of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

Just to add that Thiem is 27 and Zverev 23.  

Federer is 39, Nadal 34, Djokovic 33 and Murray 33.  Murray has a metal hip, Nadal has been through many significant injuries, Djokovic appears to have had what could have been a career ending elbow injury, while Federer has had various back issues given his age.  These top four players have so many "miles on the clock" that their equivalent physical ages are probably nearer to their mid-sixties.

That said we can all agree that Thiem and Zverev served up an entertaining and dramatic and hard fought match deserving of a slam final and maybe they will become great tennis players of their era rather than all time greats of the sport.

No name Bertie wrote:Just to add that Thiem is 27 and Zverev 23.  

Federer is 39, Nadal 34, Djokovic 33 and Murray 33.  Murray has a metal hip, Nadal has been through many significant injuries, Djokovic appears to have had what could have been a career ending elbow injury, while Federer has had various back issues given his age.  These top four players have so many "miles on the clock" that their equivalent physical ages are probably nearer to their mid-sixties.

That said we can all agree that Thiem and Zverev served up an entertaining and dramatic and hard fought match deserving of a slam final and maybe they will become great tennis players of their era rather than all time greats of the sport.

What?

Physical accumulation of scar tissue as a result of wear and tear, impact damage, major injuries and surgery.  For example the average age for hip replacement is 68.

I'd like you to find me anyone in their mid 60's with the physical capability of any of them?

bradman99.94 wrote:

Jeff Navarro wrote:

bradman99.94 wrote:Managed to get to see some of the games and great to have live action back.

As for the result, can’t stop myself thinking that any of the top 4 (with taking AM at his pre-injury standard) would have won the men’s at a canter. I completely get that it’s great to have a new grand slam winner but would suggest that this one comes with a very large asterisk

I’m guessing you don’t watch much tennis? Djokovic played the us open and screwed it up for himself. Federer is about 40 and hasn’t won the us open in over a decade. Sorry to break it to you but pre surgery Murray isn’t coming back. Maybe Nadal would’ve won, but he didn’t play so it’s irrelevant.
And put some respect on Thiem and Zverev. Thiem had made 3 slam finals and the tout finals final. Zverev is the only man other than the big boys with 3 or more masters titles - he’s also won the tour finals. Thiem and Zverev are very much as worthy as the top 4.

Out of interest (and I promise genuinely) do you think either would have beaten Djokovic?

Thiem was my favourite as soon as Nadal indicates he wasn’t going to play. Thiem pushed Djokovic to the limit in Melbourne, which is where Djokovic was 7-0 in finals - subsequently became 8-0 after just getting across the line against Thiem.

Beating two of the legends is tough work - Thiem beat Djokovic twice at Paris yet came up short against Nadal.

Anyway Djokovic wasn’t all that impressive winning the Western and Southern. And perhaps most relevant Djokovic has lost more US open finals than he has won 3-5 - so that’s was my consideration.

Finally Thiem suggested he was feeling more pressure being dubbed the favourite against Zverev, as the underdog against Djokovic - Thiem would’ve been the underdog as he seems to prefer.

In answer to the question posed in earlier postings, I think Djoko would have won the whole thing had he not been defaulted.

I was banking on another Djoko-Thiem final with Novak coming thru after a good tussle (a la Melbourne earlier this year).

I've created a Rome Masters thread and put a couple of people's posts in there.