Who is going to win the US Open 2017?

Assessing chances.

Favourite:  Federer.

Yup. Not because I am a fan.  Just on pure logic, the same as with Wimbledon.  But I am less sure at this stage than I was at the same stage at Wimbledon. Why?  Because his form is definitely not at the same level it was.  Still, I'd put him as favourite, despite him yet again being bummed by the draw.

2. Nadal

I think he has to be second favourite now. He has had a piss easy draw in every single slam this year, with the exception of having to beat the eventual champion, and perhaps that match v Dimitrov.  Imho if he had met Tiafoe in R1, he'd already be gone.  You can't expect Rublev to come up with the goods at this stage and level v Nadal, but he certainly has a chance.  Still, I think the eventual champion will be decided in the top half SF.

3. Del Potro.  He has the ability and the weapons. And he's up for it.  The only snag for him is his backhand isn't as good as it once was (it's still good enough), and he has a virus. But he can be a handful for anyone on a given day, and I'd put him favourite to beat Nadal, should they meet (yes, I know I've out Del Po 3rd here, but that's weighing up all variables).  I still think Federer will prevail, but the question is how much it will take out of Federer if he comes out flying. He's dangerous.

4. Outside chance: Busta / Querrey / Andersson.  I expect Andersson or Querrey to prevail now in the lower half, but I wouldn't put a dollar on any of the bottom lot winning the US Open (as far as I can see, it would require the finalist to be severely hampered with injury). That side of the draw has been a joke.

Carreno Busta still has a chance to become the first player to win the USO without dropping a set.

1. Nadal, because Fed is not fit
2. Federer, because he won slams before not being 100%
3. Delpo, because Fed is not fit
and since Querrey lost, no one else can win it

Fed in 3.
Nadal in 4.

RF

making Fed play his match late today ain't going to help. they are really making it easy for Nadal.

Federer has an extra day to rest after this before a semi, it's not a problem.

bogbrush wrote:Federer has an extra day to rest after this before a semi, it's not a problem.

An extra day? You mean a day. The extra day is for Andreson and CB.

Are both semis played on Friday?
I forgot how it's all working now, super saturday and all that....

yes both semis on Friday.

Tenez wrote:yes both semis on Friday.

I suppose that's good.
They'll probably play the night session.

I woudl not underestimate Kevin's chances...Maybe he will finish the job his compatriot Kevin Curren could not in those slams finals.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Federer has an extra day to rest after this before a semi, it's not a problem.

An extra day? You mean a day. The extra day is for Andreson and CB.

My bad, for some reason I got the schedule confused.

Yeah, though I think it is enough provided he doesn't have it go big. I can't believe JMDP will be much use at that though, after all he's been up to.

Who's the favourite?

If he's fit then Federer should be. I haven't seen anything incredible from Nadal and while Tenez and I had been debating the slowness of the JMDP / Thiem match I was shocked at how rapidly Federer's ball was moving against Kholi. I think Them was putting so much top on it the whole thing was slower.

I saw an interesting thing on YouTube explaining why Nadal hasn't been impressive. Essentially the verdict was that standing within 2.5 metres of the baseline to receive makes a mess of his forehand return. Can't remember the guys name, think he was French or something. It was probably Tenez

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rSA1mI-bJk

Great clip!

The only thing he couldn't spell out was 
WHY Nadal stands so far back on returns and why he is useless when he moves a little bit forward.

Hey, just imagine Nadal standing ON the baseline like Fed does returning with a SBH!!!!

Tenez wrote:I woudl not underestimate Kevin's chances...Maybe he will finish the job his compatriot Kevin Curren could not in those slams finals.

I agree.
I haven't seen him for a long time, but when fit, he can play very well, not surprised he beat Querrey - he has better serve and FH.

Din't jniw how he'll squepare off vs Busta who is such a naverage player and shouldn't be in the sf, so I hope Kev blows him off the court on Friday.

bogbrush wrote:Who's the favourite?

If he's fit then Federer should be. I haven't seen anything incredible from Nadal and while Tenez and I had been debating the slowness of the JMDP / Thiem match I was shocked at how rapidly Federer's ball was moving against Kholi. I think Them was putting so much top on it the whole thing was slower.

I saw an interesting thing on YouTube explaining why Nadal hasn't been impressive. Essentially the verdict was that standing within 2.5 metres of the baseline to receive makes a mess of his forehand return. Can't remember the guys name, think he was French or something. It was probably Tenez

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rSA1mI-bJk

Good one. I think he was Serena's coach for a while.

Yes...When it says the USO is much faster than clay....I am having a bit of doubt. I do think that the bounce is more vertical (checks up more) on clay.

I agree with Thiem's spin making the game slower but since they all spin the ball it is slow oeverall. I have seen bullets from Rublev on all corners being retrieved by a limping Goffin. And as mentioned Federer calls teh courts "slowish", Brad Gilbert too.

noleisthebest wrote:Great clip!

The only thing he couldn't spell out was 
WHY Nadal stands so far back on returns and why he is useless when he moves a little bit forward.

Hey, just imagine Nadal standing ON the baseline like Fed does returning with a SBH!!!!

Well he states that it's the wind up of the forehand.

bogbrush wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Great clip!

The only thing he couldn't spell out was 
WHY Nadal stands so far back on returns and why he is useless when he moves a little bit forward.

Hey, just imagine Nadal standing ON the baseline like Fed does returning with a SBH!!!!

Well he states that it's the wind up of the forehand.

And that is the reason why Nadal could not win a seeded player for a while there. Now they provide bigger balls for men than women and that makes the game a bit easier for Nadal.

Plus the sandy court.....and you have 2 clay specialists in the last 6 players...We coudl have had Thiem too as he had enough MPs to be included.

BTW, Rublev won his first tournament 250 on clay just a couple of weeks before the USO...so he could also be considered a clay specialist.

And one may remember what Toni said after Nadal's loss at the AO earlier this year: "The ball was not bouncing as high". Something the USO made sure of.

Stating things as facts does not make them so

Daniel wrote:Stating things as facts does not make them so

This statement suits you well actually.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Great clip!

The only thing he couldn't spell out was 
WHY Nadal stands so far back on returns and why he is useless when he moves a little bit forward.

Hey, just imagine Nadal standing ON the baseline like Fed does returning with a SBH!!!!

Well he states that it's the wind up of the forehand.

And that is the reason why Nadal could not win a seeded player for a while there. Now they provide bigger balls for men than women and that makes the game a bit easier for Nadal.

Plus the sandy court.....and you have 2 clay specialists in the last 6 players...We coudl have had Thiem too as he had enough MPs to be included.

BTW, Rublev won his first tournament 250 on clay just a couple of weeks before the USO...so he could also be considered a clay specialist.

No he couldn't.

He was the only non seed in the draw and massively inexperienced.  Nadal has lucked out yet again.  Now I expect Del Potro to come knock federer to 5 sets.

Del Potro has gone favourite for me.  Nadal standing so far back with the short balls is going to suffer horribly if Del Potro comes out playing like that again and serving that well again. The only things I can see upsetting that are injury for Del, Del not coming out playing well, or Nadal somehow managing to keep it to Del Potro's backhand for huge periods of the game.  

I don't think any of that will happen.

No doubt Tenez and NITB will be along shortly to tell me that Federer was injured, the court was too slow for Fed, Del Potro is suffering from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and so can't beat Nadal - or any other wild theories not born out of reality.

Yes I am there to tell you Fed was not 100% and that Delpo is going to lose versus Nadal.

lol no you weren't.  You were there to tell me that Federer preferred Del Potro and that Federer was injured 300 times a day when it's simply not the case.  Del Potro kicked his ass.

Perhaps I should make it more simple for you...  if Del Potro can beat the greatest of all time on HC... he can beat Nadal on HC.  Logic, see.

Reasons for Fed's loss in QF as I see:

1. Back issues erupting again. 
2. Lack of preparation. He hardly did any practice or even tarring coming into the USopen to be able to rest his back. He looked completely off on timing and footwork against tiafoe.

3. His back was hurting as he took an MTO against Kohlsscriber. So injury was taxing. 

3. Still Fed didn't play a bad QF, Delpo played great on big point. When that happens a few points decide the outcome and it did.


So IMO he didn't lose because of injury alone, just that injury didn't allow him to play as good as he could have to win the tournament. It all started with the back issues aggravating at wrong time.

Self-explanatory.

 

I must admit I am a bit down now after listening to that post-match interview.

It was beautiful.

All I can say is, what a guy....

I think DelPo must have a chance, if only because Nadal is a bit like he was a Wimbledon - not beating anyone so proving very little. 

Del Potro hits the ball like nobody else, and Nadal hasn't even played anyone who hits the ball usefully hard ((the last match was an example of brainless hitting).

If JMDP is physically ok, and the match with Federer will have had a lot of short points, then why not?

Like to think a Delpo victory will some way go to providing some redemption for the tournament, but it has certainly fell flat. The hope that the likes of Thiem, Zverev or even Dimitrov would make a statement and by all accounts they fluffed it.

Has an Aus Open 2002 or USO 2014 feel about it that a journeyman victory is on the cards.

Can a fit Kev ( the proven choker)  do it?

He is old enough to be able to cope with the pressure...( I hope)

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Reasons for Fed's loss in QF as I see:

1. Back issues erupting again. 
2. Lack of preparation. He hardly did any practice or even tarring coming into the USopen to be able to rest his back. He looked completely off on timing and footwork against tiafoe.

3. His back was hurting as he took an MTO against Kohlsscriber. So injury was taxing. 

3. Still Fed didn't play a bad QF, Delpo played great on big point. When that happens a few points decide the outcome and it did.


So IMO he didn't lose because of injury alone, just that injury didn't allow him to play as good as he could have to win the tournament. It all started with the back issues aggravating at wrong time.

He was outhit and outfoxed. I watched the match and the back didn';t enter into it.  He was rattled and nervous before he got on court, probably remembering the last time.  He let Delpo dictate points - played to his forehand - and luck played a part too.  One of the set points Delpo saved was the luckiest shot in the tournament.  It happens.  There doesn't have to be an injury excuse every time. Delpo served the best of anyone in the tournament.  There isn't much you can do about 6 feet 6 serves going in 80% of the time.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Reasons for Fed's loss in QF as I see:

1. Back issues erupting again. 
2. Lack of preparation. He hardly did any practice or even tarring coming into the USopen to be able to rest his back. He looked completely off on timing and footwork against tiafoe.

3. His back was hurting as he took an MTO against Kohlsscriber. So injury was taxing. 

3. Still Fed didn't play a bad QF, Delpo played great on big point. When that happens a few points decide the outcome and it did.


So IMO he didn't lose because of injury alone, just that injury didn't allow him to play as good as he could have to win the tournament. It all started with the back issues aggravating at wrong time.

I find it hard to follow your logic once again. 1,2, 3 are back problems but still Fed did not lose because of the back.?!?!?!!!!!
He was not 100% as he says....maybe he coudl have won while not 100% but then it is much more difficult and less in his strings. The rest is irrelevant. He lost! End of.

Daniel wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Reasons for Fed's loss in QF as I see:

1. Back issues erupting again. 
2. Lack of preparation. He hardly did any practice or even tarring coming into the USopen to be able to rest his back. He looked completely off on timing and footwork against tiafoe.

3. His back was hurting as he took an MTO against Kohlsscriber. So injury was taxing. 

3. Still Fed didn't play a bad QF, Delpo played great on big point. When that happens a few points decide the outcome and it did.


So IMO he didn't lose because of injury alone, just that injury didn't allow him to play as good as he could have to win the tournament. It all started with the back issues aggravating at wrong time.

He was outhit and outfoxed. I watched the match and the back didn';t enter into it.  He was rattled and nervous before he got on court, probably remembering the last time.  He let Delpo dictate points - played to his forehand - and luck played a part too.  One of the set points Delpo saved was the luckiest shot in the tournament.  It happens.  There doesn't have to be an injury excuse every time. Delpo served the best of anyone in the tournament.  There isn't much you can do about 6 feet 6 serves going in 80% of the time.

NITB was right. You have no clue. Why do you bother watching? Have you tried curling? You may find it more interesting!

Tenez wrote:

Daniel wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Reasons for Fed's loss in QF as I see:

1. Back issues erupting again. 
2. Lack of preparation. He hardly did any practice or even tarring coming into the USopen to be able to rest his back. He looked completely off on timing and footwork against tiafoe.

3. His back was hurting as he took an MTO against Kohlsscriber. So injury was taxing. 

3. Still Fed didn't play a bad QF, Delpo played great on big point. When that happens a few points decide the outcome and it did.


So IMO he didn't lose because of injury alone, just that injury didn't allow him to play as good as he could have to win the tournament. It all started with the back issues aggravating at wrong time.

He was outhit and outfoxed. I watched the match and the back didn';t enter into it.  He was rattled and nervous before he got on court, probably remembering the last time.  He let Delpo dictate points - played to his forehand - and luck played a part too.  One of the set points Delpo saved was the luckiest shot in the tournament.  It happens.  There doesn't have to be an injury excuse every time. Delpo served the best of anyone in the tournament.  There isn't much you can do about 6 feet 6 serves going in 80% of the time.

NITB was right. You have no clue. Why do you bother watching? Have you tried curling? You may find it more interesting!

I take it as a compliment that you come along with your ad hominems.  Your insane theories are being laughed at from all corners.   You are the one who declared that Del Potro was the easier option and he simply wasn't.  You're wrong a lot more than I am because your entire thought process is hindered by your hatred to certain players and certain playing styles, and because of blind fanboyism.  When I become as clueless as you, I will worry. 

I find it hard to follow your logic once again.

That's because you can't understand logic.

Daniel wrote:I take it as a compliment that you come along with your ad hominems.  Your insane theories are being laughed at from all corners.   You are the one who declared that Del Potro was the easier option and he simply wasn't.  You're wrong a lot more than I am because your entire thought process is hindered by your hatred to certain players and certain playing styles, and because of blind fanboyism.  When I become as clueless as you, I will worry. 

You are funny. My hatred of some player doesn;t make me as blind as you. You always see Nadal lose...you have been predicting losses at every tournament but he is number 1. Only federer stopped him to have 3 more titles this year...but surely that you did not foresee cause your flawed logic is always based on past results.

I've predicted losses that have come true (and let's not forget Nadal has had an insanely easy draw in most tournaments).  You wish it away with "oh, but Federer stopped him".  Give me a break.  You were dancing about declaring Nadal would win Wimbledon and was a dead cert for the final, and we all know who kicked your ass that time.

Now you've given Del Potro no hope twice.  You've already been wrong once.  So you better hope he does beat Delpo or you'll look even bigger fool. 

Daniel wrote:I've predicted losses that have come true (and let's not forget Nadal has had an insanely easy draw in most tournaments).  You wish it away with "oh, but Federer stopped him".  Give me a break.  You were dancing about declaring Nadal would win Wimbledon and was a dead cert for the final, and we all know who kicked your ass that time.

oh well done for guessing that one right. Is that your only good guess. Don't forget that this match could have swung the other way around as Nadal had 4 BPs in that decider. You were just lucky to have been right for once as you predict nadal's loss at every single match.

Now you've given Del Potro no hope twice.  You've already been wrong once.  So you better hope he does beat Delpo or you'll look even bigger fool. 

again, who got to the first MPs? Thiem or Delpo. Well done for guessing that the crowd woudl lift Delpo to the point of saving 2 or 3 MPs! You are indeed a really smart analyst.

Regarding Fed Delpo, I expected Fed to win....but I certainly was always in doubt, unlike you, about his form. You can't see a player with a broken leg yet you can guess who is going to win....frankly, you have no clue!

haha!  Thiem is out, pal.  Del Potro beat him - despite your predictions.  And he just beat Fed. You are actually trying to spin that?  Not even Peter Mandelson would bother trying.

Also, there was no broken leg. You are honestly losing it.  It's disturbing.

Delpo doesn't have much of a chance. I'd say 20% at most. This court comes close to a clay court so NAdal has all the time in the world to put ones BH under pressure. In 2009 all Delpo got from Nadal is short balls left and right. That was fun for him. Nadal plays much much more powerfull now. 
I'm afraid Delpo won't hit many FH's tonight.  And it seems he's not too condident himself.

Nadal in 3, probably 1 or 2 breadsticks along the way.
The other semi...does it matter? 

So NAdal got low ranked players, an exhausted opponant in the semi and a nobody in the final

Amazing luck for Nadal, truly amazing.

I don't think it comes anywhere near to a clay court and I think 20% is massively underrating Del's chances (so do the bookies). Nadal was a better player in 2009 and so was Del Potro.  We'll see.

gallery play wrote:Delpo doesn't have much of a chance. I'd say 20% at most. This court comes close to a clay court so NAdal has all the time in the world to put ones BH under pressure. In 2009 all Delpo got from Nadal is short balls left and right. That was fun for him. Nadal plays much much more powerfull now. 
I'm afraid Delpo won't hit many FH's tonight.  And it seems he's not too condident himself.

Nadal in 3, probably 1 or 2 breadsticks along the way.
The other semi...does it matter? 

So NAdal got low ranked players, an exhausted opponant in the semi and a nobody in the final

Amazing luck for Nadal, truly amazing.

Completely agree.

Nadal had a stomach tear or something in 2009 if I recall.

I give JMDP a chance if only because there's one thing that Nadal doesn't like and it's power hitting. If we see Nadal retreating far behind the baseline then it's time to get interested.

Nadal is a master (just like Murray) of neutralising attackers just by keeping ball in play.
His retrieving has been excellent vs Rublev, though Rublev fed him dream balls and made Nadal look better than he was/is.

Don't know what Delpo-Nadal h2h is, but advantage has to go to Nadal mainly because of how the court plays, the ball jumps up after bounce so he is in heaven.

If the match was played in AO, it would have been a different story.

In fact I would really love for Busta or Anderson to win somehow.

Just to make this pompous, past-it, sinking Titanic of a tournament look the worst slam of the year.

noleisthebest wrote:Nadal is a master (just like Murray) of neutralising attackers just by keeping ball in play.

Even i -as a first class Nadal critic- think that's not accurate. It's a mistake to think Nadal can't play against power hitters, he's a powerhitter himself. In fact, given the speed combined with spin he injects, he's probably the most powerful of all. Thats why tonight most rallies will be played from Nadal's FH to Delpo's BH. I don't even think Nadal will cover more yards. 
But there's a huge dependency for both: the court speed. Delpo's chances would have been considerable better on the recent AO court. On skidding courts, NAdal has no choice but taking it earlier and then he's a different player.

Delpo is not in top shape anymore, his win against Federer doesn't mean much. I even think Fed would have lost to Anderson/Busta given his current shape, both physically and mentally. 

So here's how it goes: Delpo will be pushed back on his BH side from point one (no shaky start for Nadal since his confidence is sky high now he knows there's nothing that can really trouble him to get the title). To compensate that Delpo 'll try to finish the point from everywhere and at any time. Result: UE's UE's and UE's.
It's going to be a ugly affair.

Maybe Anderson can win a TB against Nadal, but winning 3 sets? No way.


@Daniel: Nadal better in 2009? Have you actually seen that semi? Nadal was a joke that year.

The way I see the essence of Nadal's game is:

he is not a proactive player, is not able to shorten the point, is not instinctive or creative... so his phopilosophy is to keep the ball in play until he either draws out a UE or creates space for a safe "winner", often after a long rally.
That is 90% of his points,

Obviously each opponent will send him different balls and present a different challenge for him.

Of course, over the years, his timing and spin have got better, esp his BH.

The muscle that powers his FH and gives the energy to the ball from 4m behind the baseline is nothing to admire.

His only genuine non tennis talent is his movement which is natural and excellent.

And before someone jumps on me and tells me how movement is essential in tennis, let me add yes it is, but the main talent is hand to eye coordination as tennis is STILL a racquet sport.

In fact,  that is the ONLY talent.

The rest: anticipation, footwork, athleticism, movement etc are something else.

Very important (eg Federer has all of those and could not be where he is without them), but what sets him apart is the ease with which he plays.
And only talent can do it.