US OPEN 2017

Ok I just checked the draw and it is not as bad as I thought. Fed has a lot of hard hitters but few potential lung busting players which is good. The toughest player he has is Kyrgios but the Aussie has a hip problem so he will not want to extend rally. Of course he has Nadal....but frankly better to have Nadal in teh semi than in the final. The sooner he stops Nadal the better his chance to regain number 1. The most dangerous player coudl be Zverev but that's on Murray's side.

Not easy for sure.....but not dramatic either.

Kyrgios has a bloody easy draw till Querrey.

And I am pretty sure that Murray won't have it easy. There are a few guys who will give his a hard time.

Ah well, it's nowhere near as hard as the run to the Australian Open. And Wimbledon wasn't that demanding.

I'm more irritated at what an easy run Nadal has, none of those Querrey / Kyrgios type players that blow him away.

Where's Shapavolov?

No Pouille either. yes Nadal has it easy....but I am sure he won't make it look so.

Tenez wrote:No Pouille either. yes Nadal has it easy....but I am sure he won't make it look so.

This top half looks similar to Fed's AO draw in the sense that Dimi can either beat or wear Nadal out before his match with Fed.

If anything, this draw will take pressure off Federer a bit and he may again start playing with that light, easy spirit from AO.

Wow. All those withdrawals really depleted the field. Looking at draws for the top three they all look easy!

Murray's easiest of all. Fed and Rafa a little more difficult, but neither is very hard. Fed probably a little harder than Rafa, with Kyrgios in his section. On the other hand, Fed has an easier QF, plus with Kyrgios one never knows if he even advances to meet Fed. Rafa has plenty of single handers and no big hitters, so he will be happy. Hopefully Dimi will come in good form.

Overall, top half much more interesting than the bottom one. Hopefully bottom half plays first as I would like to go to the USO next Saturday, and would rather see the top half.

Neither v hard?  Kyrgios has just been in a Masters final with Dimitrov.  I'd say having those players as r4 and QF opponents is not nice at all.  I fully expect Nadal to be out by SF - and possibly Federer too by the QF.

Oh Andy, what an oaf you are.

I take it you are referring to him doing this after he's caused Federer to be in same section as Kyrgios and same half as Nadal?  Murray is indeed an idiot.

What does anyone make of it? he walks bizarrely.....very straight up!

Hunchback of Notre Dame. He's finished.

Looks fine to me.

Bloody idiot Murray, screwed the draw up. What a buffoon.

Tenez wrote:What does anyone make of it? he walks bizarrely.....very straight up!

I saw that yesterday.
Thought the same...very stiff, plus all the light hitting and too much shanking even with that.

But hey, he says he feels fantastic....

I had a feeling Murray would do this just to stuff Fed, not the first time

Who is going to make the final from the bottom half? Zverev should be the big favorite, but he has never been past Rd4 in a slam. Cilic may not be healthy enough. So maybe Ferrer?

I hope Lucas Pouille, though he's been in poor form this year, don't know whether it's injury or stg else.

Where is Shapalov?


Btw,
I think this has all been rigged...but what do you expect from a slam that doesn't even use raincovers...,

You always think that.

Shapovalov is in the bottom half (I think). It would be cool if he made the final but that is probably a stretch. Though with that draw, who knows.

Yes, Shap,would probably run out of steam quickly in best of 5, esp as he had to play qualies.

Would be fantastic if he could make a few rounds

summerblues wrote:You always think that.

"Accidents" like this only happen in Hollywood, and USO is Hollywood of tennis.

... wrote:"Accidents" like this only happen in Hollywood

Why do you think so?

Speaking of Fed's practice session. There has been some chatter about Rafa maybe having bad knee (yet again). Maybe Fed and Rafa should both pull out.

Fed playing the second night match on Tuesday.  Yay!  I should be able to get home from work before he starts!

bogbrush wrote:Gigantic, career defining things rest on winning this US Open.

I am now officially greedy for 3 Slams this year, the y/e #1, and complete mastery of the tennis Universe forever.

That is not how I see it.  3 slams at 35/36, #1 ranking etc would be fabulous, but "career" to me is about the overall volume of accomplishments rather than about the specifics of how it all happened.  A guy who gets to 19 slams by winning two at the age of 35 would not be doing any better in my books than a guy who gets to 19 at age 29 and stops there.  After all, if they both reach 19, then it must mean that the one who was winning at 35 must have failed to keep up earlier on.

So, of course, USO title would be great, but in terms of "career" it would just move from 19 to 20, no extra points from me for doing it at age 36.  Same with #1 spot.  If he adds say 20 weeks, it is 20 weeks on top of 300+.  Great accomplishment, but going from 300 to 320 is not "career defining".

His career has been largely defined already, and he can hopefully bulk it up some more, but he is not "defining" it anew.

Emancipator wrote:If Nadal were to win the USO (and let's face it, with such a depleted field, anything is possible) it puts Federer back in a dog fight for GOAT supremacy.

Feds would still have the cushion of 3 slams but Rafa would have the additional confidence of another HC slam + a nearly 5 year age differential.

Well, 5 year age differential maybe, but he is 31 already.  The initial reaction after Fed won two slams this year was "he is now probably getting himself ahead for good".  But at the same time, people who used to assume slam wins dried up around 30-32 are now giving Rafa/Nole/Andy another 5-6 years, so maybe two slam titles that Fed won are actually making him look more vulnerable with Rafa having potentially 5 good years ahead of him

My take is that it is unlikely that Rafa will have five more productive years.  Not impossible, but very unlikely.  It is harder and harder to keep fit and battle ready as players age.  Just look at Nole, Andy and Stan.  Or even Fed and Rafa - they have had increasing share of health issues and poorer performances also (2017 notwithstanding).

That's if you consider pure numbers to be "goat"  which I don't.  I'm tired of people not seeing the bigger picture.  Weeks N1. Tour finals. Spread across surfaces and slams.  Nadal has 10 slams at French.  That isn't a rounded player compared to Federer.

summerblues wrote:

... wrote:"Accidents" like this only happen in Hollywood

Why do you think so?

That is a very big question, best left for thr off-season when not much is haoppening.

I suppose USO "invested" in roofs (at last! better late than never, though not even sure of that) and had to stop further financial hemorroiging in ticket sales, so I don't think Murray had a choice in the timing of his withdrawal.

He was just told what to do and did it.

That much for him being a "Scot"...

Poor timing! Not concerned about what it did to Federer, just more a case of he must've known well in advance he wouldn't make it, and whilst he tried to give himself every chance, he has an obligation to the tournament and the rest of the field and the fans.

Don't expect to see him now until 2018.

Good guess as any who will win from here.

If I were Murray I could not care less about Federer and Nadal, I agree however that he lets the tournament down to some extend but frankly he was never going to be a crowd magnet so as most of us said the draw was unbalanced even before he retired.

This is why I don;t think they tweaked the draw too much cause they would have put Nadal and Federer in opposite sides had they wanted/wished for an everyday max crowd potential.

... wrote:I don't think Murray had a choice in the timing of his withdrawal.

He was just told what to do and did it.

You just come up with random stuff to use against whoever you do not like.  Within a few hours you simultaneously suggested that (a) Murray did it just to stuff Fed and (b) he was told what to do and had no choice in it.  If this were about Djokovic, you would also be coming up with stories - except they would all be making Nole look good.

You should have some shame.  It would do your soul good.

Tenez wrote:If I were Murray I could not care less about Federer and Nadal, I agree however that he lets the tournament down to some extend

Yes, of course, it is not about caring about Fed or Rafa, but about stiffing the tournament.

... wrote:

summerblues wrote:

... wrote:"Accidents" like this only happen in Hollywood

Why do you think so?

That is a very big question, best left for thr off-season when not much is haoppening.

Oh no, we can't wait, we all want to hear about the Hollywood accident conspiracies; preferably with a dose of Tenez chipping in and backing you up as he normally does with the conspiracies.

summerblues wrote:

... wrote:I don't think Murray had a choice in the timing of his withdrawal.

He was just told what to do and did it.

You just come up with random stuff to use against whoever you do not like.  Within a few hours you simultaneously suggested that (a) Murray did it just to stuff Fed and (b) he was told what to do and had no choice in it.  If this were about Djokovic, you would also be coming up with stories - except they would all be making Nole look good.

You should have some shame.  It would do your soul good.

NITB, can you not see?, Summerblues is clearly part of the conspiracy himself and thus in a cunning way trying to devalue and degrade your legitimate exposés.

For Daniel and SB!
=================
Q. You mentioned playing with pain. How often in a regular year would you play a tournament 100%, playing 100%?

ROGER FEDERER: 50% maybe. I have no idea. Then what's 100%?

As I keep telling you, "100%" is meaningless. No player will ever be at what they would call "100%". Using it as an excuse for losing is just annoying and you've already started before he's played. When a player enters, he enters and believes he can win.  There is no excuse.

you seem to know so much...yet you can't see a broken leg when there is one....so you can imagine what I think of your analysis of the game.

A broken leg?  Is this your new excuse for Fed haha?

Also, if you read the above quote from Federer, he is saying how much of the year he's at his best.  Not that he's at "50%.