An early look at the US Open

[meganfernandez]

1R-2R probable losers:
Badosa, Jabeur, Mugu, Emma, Leylah, BHM, Krejcikova, Teichmann, Anisimova (injury), Trevisan, Riske, Mertens.
Giorgi.

PROBABLE. I hope I am wrong in many of these cases.

Depends on the draw. I think most of them would beat a WC and a LL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[meganfernandez]

Alternate post: Truly, we don't have a damned clue with the women's draw. I sure wasn't picking Rybakina to win Wimbledon, so.....

doesn’t stop people from obsessing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nelslus]

Alternate post: Truly, we don't have a damned clue with the women's draw. I sure wasn't picking Rybakina to win Wimbledon, so.....

doesn’t stop people from obsessing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

....APPARENTLY not.

[Suliso]

Well, otherwise why would we be here?

[ponchi101]

Well, otherwise why would we be here?

Indeed. And we don't put people in straightjackets because they need to type their messages

[meganfernandez]

Oh no



Obviously worse for the family, but it has USO implications so putting it here too

[ashkor87]

Most of Federer's Wimbledon titles were preceded by a Halle title.

This is a bit of an adhominem argument but I always exempt people like Nadal and Federer..the exception proves the rule..(interesting phrase that, didn't get it first time I heard it..my economics prof at UCLA, of all people, explained it to.me! The exception is so outstanding that it demonstrates the general validity of the rule!)

[ponchi101]

But when you get too many exceptions, then the rule is bogus.
Becker won Queens two weeks before his first Wimby. Martina and Chrissie routinely won before they also went and won a slam. This year, the rule went out the window with Iga before RG, because she played and won everything before that slam. Andreescu preceded her USO with a win at home a few weeks earlier. I am sure there are plenty of examples.
The thing is statistical. Most "very good" players will win 2-3 tournaments a year; a David Ferrer will therefore retire with 28 total wins, the same as a Kvitova. So, they can't go into Cincy thinking "Oh, if I win this one this will be one of my two tournaments of the year and I will do poorly at NYC". Players have to keep playing, and see how long of a winning streak they can string. BHM's great grass season this year simply came to an end because, as good as she is, she is still a mid level player. She is not going to string 17 wins in a row.

[ashkor87]

On the contrary, Evert/Nadal/prove the rule..only the great players can do it, that is the point, isn't it?! Exceptions have to be few, and outstanding...that is infact one reason to think highly of Andreescu..that entire year, she was undefeated on hard courts..

[ashkor87]

It is, of course, early days yet - no hard court tournaments yet in the second swing.. but we have had one earlier, totally dominated by Swiatek..
and, of course, every hard court is different - they can change the speed of the court by changing the granularity of the surface.

So, until we see how the courts are really playing at Flushing Meadow, it will be difficult to say anything.. but certainly I, for one, place little stock in the tournaments leading up to it - they are all slightly different from the USO especially in speed, and at this level, even a 5% change can be decisive..

with all these caveats then, I would say:

On the Men:

#1 Medvedev - clearly the best hard-courter in the world, defending champion, and Djokovic will probabaly not be there
#2 Sinner - the faster the court, the better he likes it, and he showed us at Wimbledon what he is capable of
# 3 Nadal - if he plays, which, to my mind, is unlikely - hard courts are hardest on his feet and he is about to become a father
# 4 - Kyrgios - he seems ready to play, and his big serve will be lethal here also
# 5 - Alcaraz - he will be able to hit his shots on the high-bouncing surface, no problem..his speed around the court will win him matches

On the Women:

#1 - Swiatek - simpy the best player in the world, totally dominated the hard courts in the first half, will be able to hit her spin
#2 - Osaka - showed us at Miami that she is getting there, and she is a 4-time major champion on hard courts.
#3 - Leylah Fernandez - very impressive at RG, beat Anisimova, for instance, which she had no business doing, on a clay court, if the court is fast like last year, I would make her #1, her reflexes and service return are out of this world.
#4 - Andreescu - her game is getting there and she was the Queen of hard courts before Osaka and Swiatek came along
#5 - Raducanu - if the court is fast, like last year, I would move her to second favorite behind Leylah..
# 6 - Rybakina - she seems a bit slow on her feet, to me,takes a split-second to adjust, especially to low balls.. but, of course, one of my favorite players anyway..

comments?

Just a gentle reminder - one of the top 5 men and one of the 6 top women did win. Not some random person ..! and the 'tuneup' events turned out to be mostly irrelevant. Even Jabeur and Ruud didnt do much at CinCinnati and the Canadian. Are we suprised? we shouldnt be.

[ponchi101]

I find that a very interesting statement.
Look at your list. Look at your forecast, and tell me how would you judge it, seeing it from hindsight:
ATP
Medvedev: 3R loss. Against a very good player, sure, but you put him at #1.
Sinner. Played well, indeed, lost the best match of the tournament to the eventual champion. No big deal with that forecast.
Nadal. Came not very well prepared, made 4R. But the Tiafoe match was not even close. Yet, as per your theory, his lack of preparation should have actually been GOOD; no Toronto, 1R at Cincy.
Kyrgios. Tamed #1, then lost to Khachanov. Again, no preparation, so he should have been a factor.
Alcaraz. You got it.

WTA
Swiatek. She won. You had her at #1. No possible discussion.
Osaka. 1R loss. To a fine player, but you had her as a favorite.
Leylah. 2R. Enough said.
Andreescu. 3R. Enough said.
Raducanu. 1R. More than enough said because many people in this forum called the upset.
Rybakina. That Wimby win is starting to look like Raducanu's US Open win. At least, a bit of an oddity.

So.
Sure, you got it with Swiatek. And Alcaraz did win. But all the other predictions were way off. It would seem then that rankings are not really good at prediction (if one #1 wins, but the other crashes, that is a 50% indicator, also known as "chance"). Previous performance is not good at prediction (Osaka, Raducanu, Andreescu, Nadal). Recent performance is not good at prediction (MS1000's winners, last Slam winner).
Sounds to me like this is becoming really, really random. Except for Swiatek, whom, as we have agreed, has gained separation from the field.

[Deuce]

It's far too early to be calling Rybakina a 'one hit wonder' a la Raducanu.
She won Wimbledon just a couple of months ago, and simply has not had sufficient time to prove whether she can follow that up with somewhat consistent good results or not.

Last year, no-one was criticizing Raducanu 2 months after the U.S. Open... people waited for about 6 months of poor results before criticizing. Rybakina should receive the same consideration.

[ashkor87]

All I say is -'other,' didn't win. A legitimate contender did...one of my top 5 or 6. I give myself a B.
And the tuneup events did not have a bearing on the USO.

[Owendonovan]

It's far too early to be calling Rybakina a 'one hit wonder' a la Raducanu.
She won Wimbledon just a couple of months ago, and simply has not had sufficient time to prove whether she can follow that up with somewhat consistent good results or not.

Last year, no-one was criticizing Raducanu 2 months after the U.S. Open... people waited for about 6 months of poor results before criticizing. Rybakina should receive the same consideration.

That's because Raducanu has a much better PR firm and isn't as camera ready as Raducanu. I see Emma taking the Bouchard route. Rybakina will threaten for a year or 2.