US Open 2022

First topic message reminder :

Former US champion Dominic Thiem awarded as wildcard.
Venus Williams also awarded a wildcard.

Iga Swiatek joins the legends of the game by winning the US Open. The Polish superstar beats Ons Jabeur 6-2 7-6
The brilliant 21 year old registers major #3.
Swiatek has now won her last 10 finals all in straight sets.

Jeff Navarro wrote:Iga Swiatek joins the legends of the game by winning the US Open. The Polish superstar beats Ons Jabeur 6-2 7-6
The brilliant 21 year old registers major #3.
Swiatek has now won her last 10 finals all in straight sets.

Yeah that's pretty impressive. Have been a few people saying women's tennis currently lacks a real "star" but she's making a good case for herself...

Seen a few clips of the women's final. A real, brutal hitting competition. Jabeur may well have beaten anyone else, but Swiatek looked super fit and also defended well.

The Pole is the first player since Kerber in 2016 to win two slams in a calendar year, which shows how the big titles have been shared out.

Iga is up to three GS crowns now. Of the current players only Osaka, with four, has more. You have to reckon Swiatek is destined for more big titles.

After watching extended highlights (around 40mins) of the semi, I wondered if Tiafoe, up against anyone else, would have won.

I didn't think the American could play as well as he did. His forehand is a real weapon. But Alcaraz, even after two exhausting matches, outlasted him - and even outhit him.

Tiafoe did try the wrong-footing shot from time to time, with much success. The drop shot was another tactic, although Alcaraz is so quick that sometimes that manoeuvre failed.

I think we'll have to assume that tiredness won't be a factor in the final for the Spaniard, given his performance in the semi after such a long quarter.

I'm expecting Alcaraz to win tonight and become the youngest-ever number one. Andy Murray, for one, took an early look at the Spaniard and declared him a future numero uno guy. Even if Ruud wins tonight, you have to think that Andy's prediction will come true sooner rather than later.

It´s strange that the winner will become number one. Neither player really seems to merit that based on their 2022 or last 12 months really. They have been playing more like 2, 3 or 4.

Seems to be a case of points being spread out as no-one dominates, and maybe Novak´s absences and the Wimbledon points decision are a factor. He still feels like the best player to me until proven otherwise. Of the last 6 slams he´s played there´s been 4 wins, 1 final defeat to Medvedev at last year´s US Open, and 1 defeat in a 4th-set tiebreaker to Rafa at the FO when he has the misfortune to draw Rafa in the quarter otherwise he could have gone further.

Whoever wins today can´t fully be recognized as the best unless they back it up by winning the Australian Open and/or beat Novak there.

Quite a change from most of the last 20 years when you really expected at least 6 tournament wins at least and maybe 2 slams and 2 masters and 8,000 points to be number one.

HB - Know what you mean about the "feel" of a number one. But the Novak situation, plus the no-points Wimbledon, was bound to put a different complexion on things.

Nevertheless, I suspect that, Djoko or no Djoko, the sport is being well served by the kind of talent being displayed by the likes of Alcaraz.

Henman Bill wrote:It´s strange that the winner will become number one. Neither player really seems to merit that based on their 2022 or last 12 months really. They have been playing more like 2, 3 or 4.

.... Novak´s absences and the Wimbledon points decision are a factor. He still feels like the best player to me until proven otherwise. Of the last 6 slams he´s played there´s been 4 wins, 1 final defeat to Medvedev at last year´s US Open, and 1 defeat in a 4th-set tiebreaker to Rafa at the FO when he has the misfortune to draw Rafa in the quarter otherwise he could have gone further....

It is unfortunate, but it is what it is.  Would have been nice to see Djokovic fade out as the newGen fought and lost and then fought and won.   By the time Djokovic plays again he may have truly been surpassed.  He turns 36 next year and may not be allowed to compete at the Australian Open again.  

ps: Medvedev seems to have proven he is not going to dominate and may be hard pushed to win another slam.  I still have hope for Zverev to be at least competing for the slams regularly assuming he has a 100% recovery.

NNB - Medvedev will certainly face stiff opposition from the young guns, but he has enough talent, and unorthodoxy, to suggest more Slam titles are possible, IMHO.

I thought this might well be Zverev's year, so the injury was particularly galling for him and his fans. But he's only 25 and his time will, surely, come.

What about tonight. Anyone fancy Ruud or will Alcatraz become the Open Era's youngest number one?

Some people say that Ruud reminds them of Thiem. Ruud has had an excellent tournament, seems to play smart (good court IQ), and should be significantly fresher than Alcaraz. Some said they could see that Alcaraz was fatigued in the semi-final but he still had enough to see off Tiafoe. Incidently Tiafoe played 8 tie-breakers in this years US Open and won them all. Should be a good final. I suspect Ruud is going to outlast Alcaraz to win the US Open.

Carlitos Alcaraz wins the US Open to become the young man in the Open Era to become world #1. The era of Carlitos has began.
Alcaraz winning 6-4 2-6 7-6 6-3
Alcaraz fitness is ridiculous

Bit harsh to say Medvedev might be hard pushed to win another slam but let´s see.

It´s very open at the moment.

Entertaining final...some great points..watch the extended highlights if you didn´t catch it live. Worth a look. Both played well but Ruud did make a few more wild shots.

Alcaraz I haven´t seen play all that much and I didn´t realize he would be serve volleying and going to the net so much. A pretty good all round game for such a young player. Few weakness. Serve to win the title was similar to the Raducanu one.

It looks very open at the moment going into next year.

Here is a question for everyone: do you think any player will win multiple slams next year on the men´s side?

I don´t see any player emerging as a clear no 1 in 2023. Alcaraz has a chance but to me he doesn´t really look like he is about to go and dominate. So many 5 setters suggesting he is beatable and today´s final he wasn´t quite at the Djokovic/Nadal/Federer level. Just a notch below. So I think it will be competitive for quite a while.

Sorry that I didn't get to see either the men's or women's final. I'll have to settle for the highlights but congratulations to both Iga Świątek and Carlos Alcaraz.

Henman Bill wrote:Here is a question for everyone: do you think any player will win multiple slams next year on the men´s side?

My answer to this question is yes because I don't think Novak Djokovic's slam winning days are over yet. There are already rumours that he will be allowed to enter the AO next year. If he's allowed to enter all four of the majors next year, I can easily imagine him winning a couple.

Ruud was disappointing but Alcaraz showed his class.  Sinner v Alcaraz was the match of the tournament.  

Ruud got to the French Open final but he was in the weaker half of the draw.  I recall a great four set quarter-final between Alcaraz and Zverev with Zverev winning in four with the last set being on a 9-7 time-breaker where Alcaraz could have won and taken it to five sets.  Then Zverev had what was looking like the beginnings of the greatest match ever with Nadal in the semi-final - over 3 hours played for LESS than two sets played (7-6, 6-6 retired) and I was sure that Zverev was going to outlast Nadal until Zverev had the horror injury.

Alcaraz and Pete Sampras both won their first grand slam at 19 years of age at Flushing Meadows.  It took Sampras nearly three more years to win his second stage but he skipped the Australian Open twice during that period.

I didnt see any of the US open on TV this year, just the end of day highlights. Well done to Alcaraz and Swiatek. I didnt really hear many people talking about it this year, even in my local club nobody seemed to be getting particularly excited about it, with the exception of maybe the Sinner vs Alcaraz match.

Its good to see some new players breaking through but you do get the sense when Nadal and Djokovic are no longer in it, a lot of interest wanes. Nobody talking about the women's game which I still think is in the doldrums, obviously Swiatek is an excellent player though. Still not a single decent rivalry in the womens game to get excited about

It think it's obvious that some of the limelight will dim once Nadal and Djokovic finally call it quits.

But there's a group of players - Medvedev, Alcaraz, Zverev, Ruud, Tsitsipas, Sinner etc that will compete for the big prizes.

I don't think we've see anyone in the coming years getting close to 22/21/20 though.

We were lucky to live in the golden era of tennis.

Jeff Navarro wrote:It think it's obvious that some of the limelight will dim once Nadal and Djokovic finally call it quits.

But there's a group of players - Medvedev, Alcaraz, Zverev, Ruud, Tsitsipas, Sinner etc that will compete for the big prizes.

I don't think we've see anyone in the coming years getting close to 22/21/20 though.

We were lucky to live in the golden era of tennis.

Here's a question then, presumably a few of the young crop will end up winning more grand slams than Murray but have any of them shown a capability to match his performance level?

it will no doubt be easier to win slams once the big 3 are gone. You kind of have to feel for Murray and others who had to compete with Djokovic, Nadal and Federer. I am convinced the likes of Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer, Nalbandian and several other really good players would have won at least a slam or two had they been around from the mid 90s to mid noughties.

The fact that Del Potro and Cilic only won one slam says it all (I know Del Potro got injured though too which certainly didnt help his case) . Sure Cilic is way past him prime now and he reached the semi finals of the French Open this year and he took Alcaraz this week to 5 sets!

I think the level of tennis the big 3 brought between 2005 - 2016 in particular was from another planet. More often than not it was impossible to beat any of them at a slam but for other players they had to often beat at least one of them but usually 2 or 3!

The ultimate example was Berdych in 2010 wimbledon, he actually managed to beat Federer and Djokovic back to back and then lost to Nadal in the final. Talk about cursed luck of the draw.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Jeff Navarro wrote:It think it's obvious that some of the limelight will dim once Nadal and Djokovic finally call it quits.

But there's a group of players - Medvedev, Alcaraz, Zverev, Ruud, Tsitsipas, Sinner etc that will compete for the big prizes.

I don't think we've see anyone in the coming years getting close to 22/21/20 though.

We were lucky to live in the golden era of tennis.

Here's a question then, presumably a few of the young crop will end up winning more grand slams than Murray but have any of them shown a capability to match his performance level?

But there has to be some sort of logic, Murray and Wawrinka, winning 3 majors each when 3 guys between won 63. That shows the level of Murray and Wawrinka.

Obviously casuals won't understand this and they'll only look at plain numbers.

Murray and Wawrinka's road to prosperity was through 'killers row'. That elevates them.

Just look at Murray's opponents in major finals - 8x Djokovic, 3x Federer and 1x Raonic
Wawrinka as well - 2x Djokovic and 2x Nadal

From 2010 through to 2016 only four players beat Murray at either the Aussie Open or Wimbledon; the big three and Grigor Dimitrov at Wimbledon 2014. Berdych and Ferrer are the only other two to have beaten him at the French in that same timespan, his US open form was always a bit scratchier. If any of the current crop reach 30 grand slam quarter finals i'll be mightily impressed.

Berdych French 2010
Ferrer French 2012
Dimitrov Wimbledon 2014

I saw an interesting stat on TV yesterday about the youngest no 1s. Hewitt and Safin are top, and they are hall of famers, but not GOAT contenders. Novak and Roger and Rafa weren´t on the list at all. I´m not sure what to make of that. Probably Rafa had as many points as Alcaraz does now at no 2 at this age (I guess) while dealing with peak Federer. And maybe Hewitt and Safin just happened to get to no 1 in a period when there was no-one dominating.

Federer of course was not quite as good as Alcaraz at this age but went on to have a fairly decent career.

Martina Hingis was number one from about 17 years old or somewhere around then but couldn´t win another slam after she was about 19 or 20.

Seles of course was another very young #1, although there is the obvious caveat as to why she was unable to maintain that.

While Rafa did not reach #1 in the rankings until significantly older, that's solely because he was behind Federer, who was in the prime of making his case to be the GOAT through the mid and late 2000s, and so was hoovering up the majority of points away from clay (and it took Rafa a couple of years to bring his A game to other surfaces). The more I think about it, the more amazing Rafa is, in having been a teenage slam winner and continuing to win consistently into his mid 30s - very few if any players who burst onto the scene so young have managed to maintain their level so effectively for so long.

Congratulations to Alcaraz. Amazing year

As far as 2023 goes in the Slams, I reckon you can count on Djoko winning more than one if he plays all four.

The rise of Alcaraz is exciting. It's good, too, to see his wish, and ability, to play at the nets.

He also managed to play the tournament's two most exciting, and lengthy, matches back-to-back and STILL win a 4hr-plus match after that!

His success, and the later part of the NY Slam, have given us a glimpse of what life will be like once the Big 3 have packed it in. Yes, we've been blessed by living thru a period which has, arguably, featured the three greatest players of the Open Era.

But with some of the young bloods breaking thru the future looks rosy.

On to today and Emma R, having tumbled to a around 80-something in the rankings, had a welcome straight-sets win over former top 25er Yastremska.

sirfredperry wrote:As far as 2023 goes in the Slams, I reckon you can count on Djoko winning more than one if he plays all four.

The rise of Alcaraz is exciting. It's good, too, to see his wish, and ability, to play at the nets.

He also managed to play the tournament's two most exciting, and lengthy, matches back-to-back and STILL win a 4hr-plus match after that!

His success, and the later part of the NY Slam, have given us a glimpse of what life will be like once the Big 3 have packed it in. Yes, we've been blessed by living thru a period which has, arguably, featured the three greatest players of the Open Era.

But with some of the young bloods breaking thru the future looks rosy.

On to today and Emma R, having tumbled to a around 80-something in the rankings, had a welcome straight-sets win over former top 25er Yastremska.

I think I read somewhere she was a bit relieved that she would be moving down the rankings so she can regroup.

Emma is probably relieved the USO is over and will, no doubt, be equally relieved when the year is over.

2022 was always going to be difficult for her. And she, totally self-aware, acknowledged it. Thanks to Covid we had the unique situation of a GS winner who was incredibly inexperienced on the tour.

I am confident that Emma will have a good 2023. She may not get as high as 11 but she has enough ability to get a lot higher than her current 80-something.

I stumbled on the following published at the beginning of this year - Jan 4th 2022.  The context was Raducanu's poor end to the 2021 season following her success at the US Open.

Tennis365 quoting Pam Shriver wrote:"I think 2022 is going to continue to be a challenge for her. I think it’s going to be 2023 when we have a clearer idea of what her consistency level is going to be,” she told the official WTA Tour website.

I might be wrong, but it was such a sudden, unnatural step from qualifying to winning a major – never been done before – followed up by all these new business partnerships, recognition and coaching changes.

“The only thing that has remained the same is her name, the sport she plays and her agent. I feel like everything else around her has changed, and when you’re a teenager you’re already going through a lot of changes. I’d be surprised if she’s still in the Top 20 at the end of the year.”