An early look at the US Open

[ponchi101]

How long is long term? Very long term Kvitova is very good. Not that I'd bet any money on her winning another Slam this late in her career. On the other hand who would I bet on???

Long term in the WTA would be the last 5 years. TAKING IN CONSIDERATION, for example, recent very bad trends like Osaka's 1 1/2 year drought (which is explainable). Over the last 5 years, Naomi has been the best player, but we know that she looks iffy for the USO.
Short term is about 6 months. The good 6 months that Megan is mentioning about Garcia.
And, for example, very short term. Rybakina has had the best last two months of anybody. But she has returned to being what she is: a very good, top 25 player. But, as you say, I would not bet much on her doing extremely well at the USO.
But that has been the subject for this topic. Look at how little we have spoken about the ATP. We are a bit more sure there.

[Suliso]

But that has been the subject for this topic. Look at how little we have spoken about the ATP. We are a bit more sure there.

I'm not super sure about ATP either. It's just that I've become bored with it. Djokovic and Nadal have really overstayed their welcome for me... Kind of like Graf or Navratilova for women in the old days.

[ponchi101]

But even then: we are not talking 25 possible players winning it. we are talking 5-6.
Graf overstayed for you? She retired at 30! A young girl, by today's standards.

[AcesAnnie]

I get it that finals become stale when we see Nadal & Djokovic or Federer or Sampras & Agassi, McEnroe,Borg, Connors all the time. Even on the women's side it was that way with Graf & Seles for a time and Evert & Navratilova before that. Yes, it does become stale, but the matches are really great quality tennis. Just look at the names I posted above, so many greats & legends of the game. I don't even have Serena in there.

[ti-amie]

The point about the quality of the tennis played by top players past and present is important. I watched a lot of the WTA this week and those long close to three hour matches happened because neither player knew how to close out a set let alone a match and not two players playing top level tennis. It's sad to watch. Keys/Kvitova was one of the best played this week and that's from me who thought Kvitova's best days were behind her. And even in that match it was obvious once it went three sets who would win.

[AcesAnnie]

And, you see? Here is another problem with trying to figure out the WTA.
Kvitova is in the finals of Cincy. She is a slam champion, she has reached a hard court slam final, she is a very good player, that lately has been fading away. But, just before Wimby, she won Eastbourne only to lose in 1R, and now, again, she is in the final of a big tournament.
But we have been bitten by this dog so many times. As much as I like Petra, she is as unreliable as can be. She can win tomorrow and again, do the disappearing act in NYC, as she has done so many times. Do we go by the short term data set (WON/Finalist Cincy) or do we go by the long term data set (her last good slam appearance came in 2020).
And the same can be said about Maddie. Do you go short term data set (SF at Cincy) or do we go for the long term data set (has not been close to a slam final since her ONLY final in 2017).
It is so difficult to make a proper choice. And, in these cases, I usually go by the long term data set, unless some recent important data trump that one.

Some players all it takes is a good roll in which Caroline Garcia is on at the moment to get some momentum going. She is certainly doing it at the correct time. She is now on the verge of defeating another strong player in Sabalenka to reach the final in Cincy, and could win the entire event tomorrow. That also in turn is most definitely going to raise her confidence level heading into the Slam. All things are pointing positive for her.

[jazzyg]

It was not obvious Kvitova would win when she was down 0-40 at 4-3 in the 3rd set.

That is hindsight analysis at its maximum.

[ti-amie]

Despite some of her recent showings Kvitova is stronger mentally than Keys when push comes to shove. I thought that Petra would find a way and that Madison would panic and get tight. It wasn't "obvious" in the sense you mean it but having watched both women over the years I thought that Petra would win no matter what.

[ashkor87]

Whoever wins Cinci is likely to lose early at the USO - two reasons for this..peaking too early and winning a tournament is draining, emotionally and physically..only someone as great as a Serena can win cinci and the uso one after the other...

This year, maybe another confounding factor- court speed at the USO may be quite different from that at Cinci..once you have gotten into a certain rhythm, it is hard to adjust to a different one
These 'warm-up' events should actually be referred to as 'draining' events, 'derailing' ...

[meganfernandez]

Whoever wins Cinci is likely to lose early at the USO - two reasons for this..peaking too early and winning a tournament is draining, emotionally and physically..only someone as great as a Serena can win cinci and the uso one after the other...

This year, maybe another confounding factor- court speed at the USO may be quite different from that at Cinci..once you have gotten into a certain rhythm, it is hard to adjust to a different one
These 'warm-up' events should actually be referred to as 'draining' events, 'derailing' ...

They have a week before the Open starts and sometimes 8 or 9 days until they play R1. More than enough time to rest. I think the NYC atmosphere - on and off the court - is a bigger factor in who does well in NY. And other X factors.

I don’t believe in peaking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ashkor87]

Whoever wins Cinci is likely to lose early at the USO - two reasons for this..peaking too early and winning a tournament is draining, emotionally and physically..only someone as great as a Serena can win cinci and the uso one after the other...

This year, maybe another confounding factor- court speed at the USO may be quite different from that at Cinci..once you have gotten into a certain rhythm, it is hard to adjust to a different one
These 'warm-up' events should actually be referred to as 'draining' events, 'derailing' ...

They have a week before the Open starts and sometimes 8 or 9 days until they play R1. More than enough time to rest. I think the NYC atmosphere - on and off the court - is a bigger factor in who does well in NY. And other X factors.

I don’t believe in peaking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If not peaking, what explains similar dynamics between, say, Italian and the French? is the atmosphere in Paris all that different from Rome? I don't think so..

[meganfernandez]

Whoever wins Cinci is likely to lose early at the USO - two reasons for this..peaking too early and winning a tournament is draining, emotionally and physically..only someone as great as a Serena can win cinci and the uso one after the other...

This year, maybe another confounding factor- court speed at the USO may be quite different from that at Cinci..once you have gotten into a certain rhythm, it is hard to adjust to a different one
These 'warm-up' events should actually be referred to as 'draining' events, 'derailing' ...

They have a week before the Open starts and sometimes 8 or 9 days until they play R1. More than enough time to rest. I think the NYC atmosphere - on and off the court - is a bigger factor in who does well in NY. And other X factors.

I don’t believe in peaking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If not peaking, what explains similar dynamics between, say, Italian and the French? is the atmosphere in Paris all that different from Rome? I don't think so..

Similar dynamics being the Rome winner bombs out of the French because s/he peaked too soon?

The explanation is probably just circumstances. The nature of narrow competition. The many X factors in individual sports. There are a lot of examples of players doing well before a Slam and then at the Slam.

I think players manage their energy, bodies and X factors so that they are in optimal shape for certain events, but if X is the goal (winning a Slam), I don’t think they are trying for X minus 50% three weeks out, then X minus 30% two weeks out, then X minus 10% starting the Slam. I think they want to play as close to X level as much as possible and then manage the contributing factors accordingly.

Just my opinion. I’d love to hear players talk about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ponchi101]

I don't believe in peaking either.
So, what should the players do? Lose on purpose on, let's say, Friday? Don't play any warm up? Becker, a total nobody at the time (ranked 65) won Queens in 1985. Three weeks later, he won it all. Graf never played a single grass court tournament prior to W. She did well.
In 1995, she played NO tournaments at all in between RG and W, and then before the USO. She swept.
It varies, from individual to individual.

[ashkor87]

Queens and Wimbledon is a good example for me to quote, actually..when McEnroe won both, he was the first to do it in a hundred years!

[Suliso]

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