US Open, Flushing Meadows, NY USA - Grand Slam (Men)

[The Strokes]

Shapo not only won the quals and made it to the MD but also is the highest seed to do so from the quals draw.
He got his opener against Medvedev, the coin thrower. After he wins that, he faces slumping Tsonga. Once
he beats Tsonga, he takes over Tsonga's octet and reaches QF where he will face hipless Andy. Once he
wins that he gets his revenge match against Sasha. If he can win that, he will face a backless Roger or a kneeless Rafa.

If you can make it in NY, you can make it anywhere Shapo.

LOL! Are you serious?
I love Shap and have been on his bus since he won Wimb juniors, but don't expect a repeat of Montreal.

That was
1) In Canada, crowd pulling bigtime for him
2) BO3 there, not BO5
3) He was a relative no-one then (to anyone who didn't follow juniors) he went overnight to a someone, jumped almost 100 points in the ranks at that tourney, had nothing to lose in MOntrea--already that has changed.

We'll see. Medvedev is possible but not too likely in my mind. Tsonga gets less likely.
There's still a lot of missing aspects of his game--totally natural, he's 18.

 

[TennisFan101]

It doesn't depend on how fast the surafce is, AO was the fastest HC and Rafa played great there. MOntreal and IW were slow and he didn't, but it isn't the speed, it's him.
And if anything to do with the court, not the speed, but the height of the bounce.

I think it's a riot Fed fans are worried about Tiafoe--I see this on other sites. Not feeling very confident?

I like Tiafoe but I don't see him beating Fed unless Fed is having groin [AO] or back problems.

 

[The Strokes]

I like Tiafoe too, but more importantly, I think it's very telling that Fed fans are worried about him.
I really hope that isn't the statue of Rafa they settled on ....

 

[Front242]

I like Tiafoe too, but more importantly, I think it's very telling that Fed fans are worried about him.
I really hope that isn't the statue of Rafa they settled on ....

He's only a tough opponent if Roger isn't 100% fit and even if he is 100% fit, he hasn't had much time to practice as he's been trying to recover which meant practice had to take a back seat.

 

[TennisFan101]

Shapo not only won the quals and made it to the MD but also is the highest seed to do so from the quals draw.
He got his opener against Medvedev, the coin thrower. After he wins that, he faces slumping Tsonga. Once
he beats Tsonga, he takes over Tsonga's octet and reaches QF where he will face hipless Andy. Once he
wins that he gets his revenge match against Sasha. If he can win that, he will face a backless Roger or a kneeless Rafa.

If you can make it in NY, you can make it anywhere Shapo.

Love your Sinatra allusion. Found your post funny and entertaining. Shapo has jumped from 250 to 69 in seven months which is great. Let's see how he does at the US Open. I think Shapo needs more time to develop his body/stamina.

 

[TennisFan101]

I like Tiafoe too, but more importantly, I think it's very telling that Fed fans are worried about him.
I really hope that isn't the statue of Rafa they settled on ....

[Moxie said the same]
LOL No. That is Nike's clay statue of Rafa. At least he is recognizable, no?

 

[herios]

What is this anxiety over Tiafoe first round all about for Roger fans?
The American has only 2 wins over top 50 players to date. One of them was Zverev, true, but Zverev was gassed plus Zverev is not an attacking player.
Roger just has to bring his C game and that will be enough.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

LOL! Are you serious?
.

Obviously, I am not serious and am not projecting him to win USO. I was just unleashing some hype over the new kid in the block.
But, I do think that he has a reasonable chance to win a few matches. Tsonga is in bad form and went out in the first round at both
Montreal and Cincy. I would not be surprised if Shapo can upset him. If he does that, he has a fairly easy path to QF where he will
lose to Andy (assuming he is fit).

My key serious point is that Shapo is an octet that is free of strong players and so has a good opportunity to go deep.

 

[atttomole]

It doesn't depend on how fast the surafce is, AO was the fastest HC and Rafa played great there. MOntreal and IW were slow and he didn't, but it isn't the speed, it's him.
And if anything to do with the court, not the speed, but the height of the bounce.

I think it's a riot Fed fans are worried about Tiafoe--I see this on other sites. Not feeling very confident?

Yes, it is not only going to be about the speed of the surface, but other factors too. That is why I said it 'may' be a factor. We are all conjecturing here. I know that the top players generally start as favorites for the early rounds.

 

[Carol]

Tignor's pick has exceeded all his previous stupidities.
His picks are wrong at least 75% of the time.

I think he couldn't see Fed or Rafa winning it, so just went with Murray, even though we don't know a thing about Murray's current form.
All year Murray has been the upset express.

If you were going to make a nonFedal pick, the intelligent one would be Cilic.

If Cilic is healthy.....

 

[mrzz]

Nice if you're starting to like the guy, @mrzz, but you still have your prejudices. It's not without merit the notion that he's a big match player, and I won't condescend to you by repeating his record. To call him a "big server," as if to put him in the category of Raonic, Isner, Querrey is to discount his live arm, his athleticism, and his otherwise shot skills. I know this is where you are slow to come to the Nick train. Sure, if he gets beaten earlier, it will likely because someone else played better...isn't that mostly the reason? I do think he needs to make a show of this USO that, at the very least, he's willing to give it his best.

Everyone has prejudices. I try to leave mine as clear as I can. But in Kyrgio's case, I am trying to be objective, while most -- sorry for putting it bluntly -- see what they want to see. His stats are the ones of a big server. This is as objective as it gets. Of course he is not solely a big server -- no one is -- and he is too athletic, too fast, to be one. The other thing he is -- and I pick the word just to annoy you -- is a pusher. He will rally for hours if he has too.

Maybe it is the other way around and you're showing prejudice against the three players you mentioned. All of them are able to do some shots better than Kyrgios.

For example,in Cincinati Isner (yes, Isner) dealt with the low slices from Dimitrov much better than Kyrgios did. He returned them sometimes slicing it back, sometimes with side spin, sometimes pulling out some top spin. If you saw the match you will remember that. This is simply skill and Isner showed more than Kyrgios. Yes, it is completely against the current and the hype to say something like that, but, hell, I saw the matches, saw it happening, what can I say? I don't even like the guy -- he is the "boring" option I agree -- but he showed much much more skill in this particular and important part of the game.

As for the other two: Raonic volleys better than him and surely returns serve better. Querrey has a much more complete game than his -- from the four guys being mentioned, he is by far the last one I would label as a "big server". Back to my original point: if you look closer, almost no one is "just a big server". It all depends if you want or not to cut the guy some slack. It seems that everyone are willing to do that in Kyrgio's case.

I agree with you (and I have stated it before in other posts) that his athleticism is much above average (actually, that's part of my point as why he has waaay less "talent" than people credit him). The guy is bigger and stronger than average, serves much better than average, is fast (in fact, faster than average)... and (and this is the important part) is NOT a head case. In fact, he is very smart on court, and does not implode in tight matches (he may give up on the ones he knows his toast). If the guy had STILL talent/skill above average, he would be #1 in the world already. He is still far from top 10...

About Kyrgios "live arm".... sorry, don't buy that either. He is big and strong. Slow, floating balls he can punish very hard, but he simply won't fire an amazing forehand on a decent rally ball. Gonzales had a live arm. Blake had a live arm. Kyrgios might have one one day (his ground strokes are getting better, I acknowledged that on the Cincy final "chat"), but he will need a lot of practice to get to that level. Right now he only fires a winner when he has an obvious opportunity -- which in fact is a testament to the fact that he is a very smart player. Coupled with the unorthodox play style and -- specially -- shot selection, it makes for a good replacement of "talent", or at least "skill", because this is a talent in itself -- again, one that people generally don't give him credit for.

By this post it would seem I really don't like the guy, which is not true (it was, maybe two years ago).I just believe his (current) virtues are not the ones people say he has. Just to illustrate that -- notwithstanding that past spat with Wawrinka, in this recent final with Dimitrov he showed a lot of sportsmanship in two occasions where he really did not have to. Again, I am starting to like the guy, I only disagree with most on what are his real assets.

But all this rant has made think that in fact we almost never assess a player objectively. We will see the virtues in the guys we like and ignore almost identical skills in guys we dislike. Thus the never ending discussions on the same old topics...

 

[Moxie]

I hear you, and as you say, we all sometimes see things a bit differently. Anyway, I'm honored that you used the word "pusher" specifically to annoy me.

 

[herios]

Everyone has prejudices. I try to leave mine as clear as I can. But in Kyrgio's case, I am trying to be objective, while most -- sorry for putting it bluntly -- see what they want to see. His stats are the ones of a big server. This is as objective as it gets. Of course he is not solely a big server -- no one is -- and he is too athletic, too fast, to be one. The other thing he is -- and I pick the word just to annoy you -- is a pusher. He will rally for hours if he has too.

Maybe it is the other way around and you're showing prejudice against the three players you mentioned. All of them are able to do some shots better than Kyrgios.

For example,in Cincinati Isner (yes, Isner) dealt with the low slices from Dimitrov much better than Kyrgios did. He returned them sometimes slicing it back, sometimes with side spin, sometimes pulling out some top spin. If you saw the match you will remember that. This is simply skill and Isner showed more than Kyrgios. Yes, it is completely against the current and the hype to say something like that, but, hell, I saw the matches, saw it happening, what can I say? I don't even like the guy -- he is the "boring" option I agree -- but he showed much much more skill in this particular and important part of the game.

As for the other two: Raonic volleys better than him and surely returns serve better. Querrey has a much more complete game than his -- from the four guys being mentioned, he is by far the last one I would label as a "big server". Back to my original point: if you look closer, almost no one is "just a big server". It all depends if you want or not to cut the guy some slack. It seems that everyone are willing to do that in Kyrgio's case.

I agree with you (and I have stated it before in other posts) that his athleticism is much above average (actually, that's part of my point as why he has waaay less "talent" than people credit him). The guy is bigger and stronger than average, serves much better than average, is fast (in fact, faster than average)... and (and this is the important part) is NOT a head case. In fact, he is very smart on court, and does not implode in tight matches (he may give up on the ones he knows his toast). If the guy had STILL talent/skill above average, he would be #1 in the world already. He is still far from top 10...

About Kyrgios "live arm".... sorry, don't buy that either. He is big and strong. Slow, floating balls he can punish very hard, but he simply won't fire an amazing forehand on a decent rally ball. Gonzales had a live arm. Blake had a live arm. Kyrgios might have one one day (his ground strokes are getting better, I acknowledged that on the Cincy final "chat"), but he will need a lot of practice to get to that level. Right now he only fires a winner when he has an obvious opportunity -- which in fact is a testament to the fact that he is a very smart player. Coupled with the unorthodox play style and -- specially -- shot selection, it makes for a good replacement of "talent", or at least "skill", because this is a talent in itself -- again, one that people generally don't give him credit for.

By this post it would seem I really don't like the guy, which is not true (it was, maybe two years ago).I just believe his (current) virtues are not the ones people say he has. Just to illustrate that -- notwithstanding that past spat with Wawrinka, in this recent final with Dimitrov he showed a lot of sportsmanship in two occasions where he really did not have to. Again, I am starting to like the guy, I only disagree with most on what are his real assets.

But all this rant has made think that in fact we almost never assess a player objectively. We will see the virtues in the guys we like and ignore almost identical skills in guys we dislike. Thus the never ending discussions on the same old topics...

I agree with you here. Kyrgios is overrated on this board. There is a reason why he has not been broken through yet in the top 10, or his best results in slams are still those he scored several years ago as a teenager.
He is not much more skilled than the other big servers, just a better mover.

 

[mrzz]

Anyway, I'm honored that you used the word "pusher" specifically to annoy me.

That's exactly for what we are all here for, isn't it? At least we do it with some style...

 

[The Strokes]

Everyone has prejudices. I try to leave mine as clear as I can. But in Kyrgio's case, I am trying to be objective, while most -- sorry for putting it bluntly -- see what they want to see. His stats are the ones of a big server. This is as objective as it gets. Of course he is not solely a big server -- no one is -- and he is too athletic, too fast, to be one. The other thing he is -- and I pick the word just to annoy you -- is a pusher. He will rally for hours if he has too.

Maybe it is the other way around and you're showing prejudice against the three players you mentioned. All of them are able to do some shots better than Kyrgios.

For example,in Cincinati Isner (yes, Isner) dealt with the low slices from Dimitrov much better than Kyrgios did. He returned them sometimes slicing it back, sometimes with side spin, sometimes pulling out some top spin. If you saw the match you will remember that. This is simply skill and Isner showed more than Kyrgios. Yes, it is completely against the current and the hype to say something like that, but, hell, I saw the matches, saw it happening, what can I say? I don't even like the guy -- he is the "boring" option I agree -- but he showed much much more skill in this particular and important part of the game.

As for the other two: Raonic volleys better than him and surely returns serve better. Querrey has a much more complete game than his -- from the four guys being mentioned, he is by far the last one I would label as a "big server". Back to my original point: if you look closer, almost no one is "just a big server". It all depends if you want or not to cut the guy some slack. It seems that everyone are willing to do that in Kyrgio's case.

I agree with you (and I have stated it before in other posts) that his athleticism is much above average (actually, that's part of my point as why he has waaay less "talent" than people credit him). The guy is bigger and stronger than average, serves much better than average, is fast (in fact, faster than average)... and (and this is the important part) is NOT a head case. In fact, he is very smart on court, and does not implode in tight matches (he may give up on the ones he knows his toast). If the guy had STILL talent/skill above average, he would be #1 in the world already. He is still far from top 10...

About Kyrgios "live arm".... sorry, don't buy that either. He is big and strong. Slow, floating balls he can punish very hard, but he simply won't fire an amazing forehand on a decent rally ball. Gonzales had a live arm. Blake had a live arm. Kyrgios might have one one day (his ground strokes are getting better, I acknowledged that on the Cincy final "chat"), but he will need a lot of practice to get to that level. Right now he only fires a winner when he has an obvious opportunity -- which in fact is a testament to the fact that he is a very smart player. Coupled with the unorthodox play style and -- specially -- shot selection, it makes for a good replacement of "talent", or at least "skill", because this is a talent in itself -- again, one that people generally don't give him credit for.

By this post it would seem I really don't like the guy, which is not true (it was, maybe two years ago).I just believe his (current) virtues are not the ones people say he has. Just to illustrate that -- notwithstanding that past spat with Wawrinka, in this recent final with Dimitrov he showed a lot of sportsmanship in two occasions where he really did not have to. Again, I am starting to like the guy, I only disagree with most on what are his real assets.

But all this rant has made think that in fact we almost never assess a player objectively. We will see the virtues in the guys we like and ignore almost identical skills in guys we dislike. Thus the never ending discussions on the same old topics...

Interesting post Mrzz. My feelings about Kyr recently changed, then changed back a bit again. meaning I warmed to him a bit this year, then re-cooled.

I'm no longer as impressed with his "raw talent" though he has the ability to shock and often beat (with his serve and sudden huge groundies) the top players, where others (like Berd Raonic Nish etc. ) don't. But seeing him play an in form Dimi the difference in overall quality of play was really striking. Dimi for eg has such a more complete game re movement and the entire array of shots, and how to work a point.
He has become a bit smarter on the court lately (excpet for some ridiculous tweeners) and doesn't give up as readily and doesn' timplode as readily either.

I disagree about the live arm--he's got it, very fast and free (on the FH, not the BH obviously). He does push the BH sometimes, kind of bunts it. He doesn't move his feet even half as much as a player like Dimi, or Rafa or any of the other top players. He was fat as a kind and apparently developed some on court habits/abilities to compensate. So standing pretty still does alot with his hands, and arms.
Ultimately, this is a limitation.
He also doesn't work out in a gym--also a limitation.

Even as he's steadied a bit mentally, I see less upside to him as a player. Mind you, he's still coachless. Would he even accept true coaching?

Re Raonic, I don't agree at a ll re ROS and volleys. Raonic ROS is very poor, and his volleys are just average. I would give Nick the edge in both categories. I think Raonic is on a downward slope, aside from his injuries. Think he's maxed out his potential.

 

[The Strokes]

Everyone has prejudices. I try to leave mine as clear as I can. But in Kyrgio's case, I am trying to be objective, while most -- sorry for putting it bluntly -- see what they want to see. His stats are the ones of a big server. This is as objective as it gets. Of course he is not solely a big server -- no one is -- and he is too athletic, too fast, to be one. The other thing he is -- and I pick the word just to annoy you -- is a pusher. He will rally for hours if he has too.

Maybe it is the other way around and you're showing prejudice against the three players you mentioned. All of them are able to do some shots better than Kyrgios.

For example,in Cincinati Isner (yes, Isner) dealt with the low slices from Dimitrov much better than Kyrgios did. He returned them sometimes slicing it back, sometimes with side spin, sometimes pulling out some top spin. If you saw the match you will remember that. This is simply skill and Isner showed more than Kyrgios. Yes, it is completely against the current and the hype to say something like that, but, hell, I saw the matches, saw it happening, what can I say? I don't even like the guy -- he is the "boring" option I agree -- but he showed much much more skill in this particular and important part of the game.

As for the other two: Raonic volleys better than him and surely returns serve better. Querrey has a much more complete game than his -- from the four guys being mentioned, he is by far the last one I would label as a "big server". Back to my original point: if you look closer, almost no one is "just a big server". It all depends if you want or not to cut the guy some slack. It seems that everyone are willing to do that in Kyrgio's case.

I agree with you (and I have stated it before in other posts) that his athleticism is much above average (actually, that's part of my point as why he has waaay less "talent" than people credit him). The guy is bigger and stronger than average, serves much better than average, is fast (in fact, faster than average)... and (and this is the important part) is NOT a head case. In fact, he is very smart on court, and does not implode in tight matches (he may give up on the ones he knows his toast). If the guy had STILL talent/skill above average, he would be #1 in the world already. He is still far from top 10...

About Kyrgios "live arm".... sorry, don't buy that either. He is big and strong. Slow, floating balls he can punish very hard, but he simply won't fire an amazing forehand on a decent rally ball. Gonzales had a live arm. Blake had a live arm. Kyrgios might have one one day (his ground strokes are getting better, I acknowledged that on the Cincy final "chat"), but he will need a lot of practice to get to that level. Right now he only fires a winner when he has an obvious opportunity -- which in fact is a testament to the fact that he is a very smart player. Coupled with the unorthodox play style and -- specially -- shot selection, it makes for a good replacement of "talent", or at least "skill", because this is a talent in itself -- again, one that people generally don't give him credit for.

By this post it would seem I really don't like the guy, which is not true (it was, maybe two years ago).I just believe his (current) virtues are not the ones people say he has. Just to illustrate that -- notwithstanding that past spat with Wawrinka, in this recent final with Dimitrov he showed a lot of sportsmanship in two occasions where he really did not have to. Again, I am starting to like the guy, I only disagree with most on what are his real assets.

But all this rant has made think that in fact we almost never assess a player objectively. We will see the virtues in the guys we like and ignore almost identical skills in guys we dislike. Thus the never ending discussions on the same old topics...

Sorry forgot to add, really liked your point about the difficulty of seeing a player objectively. This interests me a lot! I try to watch the players I dislike with some kind of disinterest--meaning not letting my feelings about them, affect my perception of their tennis. It can be done, but it doesn't come naturally.
Usually when I don't like a players, it's not because of their tennis, but my read on their character.

The never ending discussion of the same topics (so boring!) ((sounds suspiciously like familles and longstanding dreary bookclubs)) is also a feature of these forums, especially the small ones with the same limited membership year after year.
Having to read too much venom and bile from posters affiliated with one fan base can predispose me against the players they are attached too, which is ridiculous but true. You start taking out the behavior of the fans, on the player. (And I'm not talking exclusively about fed fans here at all, please note! Some Nadal fans can actually turn me off Nadal a bit).

 

[atttomole]

I agree with you here. Kyrgios is overrated on this board. There is a reason why he has not been broken through yet in the top 10, or his best results in slams are still those he scored several years ago as a teenager.
He is not much more skilled than the other big servers, just a better mover.

I think he is more talented than most guys in his age group, but his attitude is not that of a potential top player. To be a top player he needs the most important ingredients, one of them being the right attitude. I have to say I am also annoyed by his petulance, even thiough I like his game.

 

[herios]

Interesting post Mrzz. My feelings about Kyr recently changed, then changed back a bit again. meaning I warmed to him a bit this year, then re-cooled.

I'm no longer as impressed with his "raw talent" though he has the ability to shock and often beat (with his serve and sudden huge groundies) the top players, where others (like Berd Raonic Nish etc. ) don't. But seeing him play an in form Dimi the difference in overall quality of play was really striking. Dimi for eg has such a more complete game re movement and the entire array of shots, and how to work a point.
He has become a bit smarter on the court lately (excpet for some ridiculous tweeners) and doesn't give up as readily and doesn' timplode as readily either.

I disagree about the live arm--he's got it, very fast and free (on the FH, not the BH obviously). He does push the BH sometimes, kind of bunts it. He doesn't move his feet even half as much as a player like Dimi, or Rafa or any of the other top players. He was fat as a kind and apparently developed some on court habits/abilities to compensate. So standing pretty still does alot with his hands, and arms.
Ultimately, this is a limitation.
He also doesn't work out in a gym--also a limitation.

Even as he's steadied a bit mentally, I see less upside to him as a player. Mind you, he's still coachless. Would he even accept true coaching?

Re Raonic, I don't agree at a ll re ROS and volleys. Raonic ROS is very poor, and his volleys are just average. I would give Nick the edge in both categories. I think Raonic is on a downward slope, aside from his injuries. Think he's maxed out his potential.

We will have to disagree regarding Raonic. You dislike him, fine by me, but at least you should be objective and you clearly not.
Raonic also has several wins over the big guys: Murray 3, Roger 3 and Nodal 2.
Then he wins many points at the net and also breaks his opponents in the last two-three years and without an improved ROS that would not be possible.
As far as "downward trend" his poor season is due to his many injuries he suffered. the whole season was a slew of stop and go.
Kyrgios is poor volleyer while Raonic is not great but I would say above average.

 

[The Strokes]

Obviously, I am not serious and am not projecting him to win USO. I was just unleashing some hype over the new kid in the block.
But, I do think that he has a reasonable chance to win a few matches. Tsonga is in bad form and went out in the first round at both
Montreal and Cincy. I would not be surprised if Shapo can upset him. If he does that, he has a fairly easy path to QF where he will
lose to Andy (assuming he is fit).

My key serious point is that Shapo is an octet that is free of strong players and so has a good opportunity to go deep.

Hype? His results in MOntreal were extreme. But it remains to be seen if it happens elsewhere.
He played extremely well at Queens, beating Edmund pretty easily (Edmund was the hometown player in that match) and going to a very close 3 set match with Berd.
After watching Queens, I felt, intuitively that Shap might already be something like a top 60 player--I think he was #194 at the time.)
SO not sure what you mean by "hype" I think the reaction to what he's done in the past few months is appropriate, but I wouldn't assume he's going to sustain MOntreal type results at all. In the challenger before MOntreal, he lost to POlansky.
He himself downplays it, says he has a lot to learn and needs to do a lot of work just to maintain this new ranking.

Medvedev is not easy at all. Check out who he's beat in the past 6 months. And Tsongo for a 2nd round is def not easy. Could have been better for him, but could have been worse too.

Anyway, he definitely adds an exciting new element to the field. Can't wait to see the match against Med ...

 

[The Strokes]

We will have to disagree regarding Raonic. You dislike him, fine by me, but at least you should be objective and you clearly not.
Raonic also has several wins over the big guys: Murray 3, Roger 3 and Nodal 2.
Then he wins many points at the net and also breaks his opponents in the last two-three years and without an improved ROS.
As far as "downward trend" his poor season is due to his many injuries he suffered. the whole season was a slew of stop and go.
Kyrgios is port volleyer while Raonic is not great but I would say above average.

I don't dislike Raonic; I like Milos personally, but I don't like his game--I don't enjoy watching him play. I find him kind of ungainly, and I don't like big servers. But I feel great gratitude towards him for what he did for tennis in Canada.
I don't like being called not objective after just writing a post to MRzz talking about how we all have that tendency , and how I examine my own.
His ROS is notoriously poor.
I thought he was on a downward slope since MOya left. I also think he was floating near the top five due to a kind of lull in rapidly-improving young players. Now he's going to be passed by AZ (already has been) maybe Thiem, and maybe even Kyrgios and Dimi (same age as Raonic) as well.
Your reply to me accuses me of not being objective, but these are very objective observations. I like the guy, and I think his game is maxed out. I think he may do well to stay top ten when he comes back. He's already fallen out of top ten, and he will fall still further.

How objective are you?