US Open Tennis

The Game Room
1

Yep, the US Open starts Monday. Woo Hoo.

Federer and Safina are Number 1 seeds. Let the debate begin whether Safina or Serana should be the number 1 seed. Personally, I think Serena is the better player but I understand why Safina is number 1.

Who has got the best chance to beat Fed? Ladbrokes has 6 players at “12-1” or better odds. Next best is Tsonga at 33-1

As for the Women Serena is 2-1, Venus is 11-2, Dementieva 7-1, Safina 8-1, and Sharapova 10-1.
Men Seeds:
1 Federer
2 Murray
3 Nadal
4 Djokovic
5 Roddick
6 Potro
7 Tsonga
8 Davydenko
9 Simon
10 Verdasco
11 Gonzalez
12 Soderling
13 Monfils
14 Robredo
15 Stepanek
16 Cilic
17 Berdych
18 Ferrer
19 Wawrinka
20 Haas
21 Blake
22 Querrey
23 Kohlschreiber
24 Ferrero
25 Fish
26 Mathieu
27 Karlovic
28 Hanescu
29 Andreev
30 Troicki
31 Hewitt
32 Almagro

Women Seeds
1 Safina
2 Williams
3 Williams
4 Dementieva
5 Jankovic
6 Kuznetsova
7 Zvonareva
8 Azarenka
9 Wozniacki
10 Pennetta
11 Ivanovic
12 Radwanska
13 Petrova
14 Bartoli
15 Stosur
16 Razzano
17 Mauresmo
18 Na
19 Schynder
20 Garrigues
21 Jie
22 Hantuchova
23 Lisicki
24 Cirstea
25 Kanepi
26 Schiavone
27 Kleybanova
28 Bammer
29 Sharapova
30 Bondarenko
31 Vesnina
32 Szavay

2

Damn you! I was going to start this thread over the weekend!

Ironically I don’t actually have much to say with regards to seedings/potential matches/what have you.

I do have some pictures of my two future wives. Mmmmm. :wink:

3

If Federer wins , he will become the first man to win grand slams on three different surfaces in a calendar year. When Laver won his four slams, they were played just on two surfaces.

4

Depending on who you ask, the Australian and U.S. Opens are sometimes considered different surfaces because they’re different types of hard court with different qualities.

Federer’s timing wasn’t always on in Cincinnati, but I was impressed he beat both Murray and Djokovic. New York City loves him and he’s the big favorite, although Murray is coming on strong. I think Murray wins a slam next year. This isn’t Nadal’s best surface and he isn’t healthy, and Djokovic still has to deal with mental questions and a possibly hostile NY crowd. Roddick hasn’t been that impressive since Wimbledon, but the fans are going to go all-out for him in a way they haven’t since 2003.

On the women’s side, it’s always Williams vs. the field. But Dementieva has looked very good lately, including in a win against Serena where Serena seemed to throw in the towel after losing the first set. A Serena-Dementieva final could be great, and given how many lousy women’s finals there have been in recent years, you almost have to root for it. The pressure over the ranking issue might be getting to Safina, or maybe she just hasn’t been able to match a really good year last year, but her results haven’t been so good.

Everybody’s saying Federer has an easy draw this year and I agree. Before this year the pundits would usually say he had a difficult draw fraught with potential upsets - so and so beat him one time five years ago, don’t you know - and then he’d win his first five matches in straight sets. :stuck_out_tongue: His draw might include Lleyton Hewitt in round three, if Hewitt and his bad hip can make it that far, James Blake in round four, although unfortunately you can’t count on Blake lasting that long anymore, Soderling or Davydenko in the quarters, with Roddick or Djokovic in the semis.

As long as we’re getting ahead of ourselves, if Federer wins here, he’d also be the second man ever to win the U.S. Open six years in a row - and when William Renshaw was the winner, the defending champion got an automatic bye into the finals, so it was just a little bit different. He would also be almost a lock to finish this year at #1, getting him close to the record for most weeks on top.

It would also be the third time Federer has won three straight majors, giving him a shot to complete a non-calendar year slam in Australia next year. If he wins in Australia again, he would arguably have won majors on FIVE different surfaces.

5

Go Federer! Unfortunately, if my calculations are correct the men’s final is on the same Sunday that the NFL season starts. That means I’ll probably miss it. Oh well, whaddya gonna do, right?

I find the Williams sisters incredibly boring to watch. Their matches seem to display every aspect of the men’s game that people complain about while saying the women’s game is better. That’s okay, though; I only watch women’s tennis to oggle cute chicks. The game itself is slow motion and kind of dull even without the Williams sisters. None of them women seem to bother even trying for a return if it would require a lot of effort.

I’m hoping to see Federer beat Nadal in straight sets. I would just love that. Nadal reminds me of a Bo Jackson type of guy. You can’t be the best if you can’t stay healthy, and his game just doesn’t project longevity.

Is Federer considered the best ever yet? If not, who is? Sampras couldn’t even make the semis at the French, so I’d say Federer has the clear edge over him. Maybe Borg?

6

I suggest that you go down to your local sports bar and demand that they put the tennis on the big screen.

7

Miss my beloved New York Football Giants? If Federer and Nadal were in the final and I had front row tickets, I’d stay home and watch the Giants.

8

IIRC, the mens final usually starts late on Sunday afternoon, usually about 4:30 pm edt. The bulk of the NFL will be over by that time. Fox will have a feature game and one or two backups in case of blackout.

And if you really like football and tennis, it is a perfect combination for PIP technology.

Apparently Roddick is on the same side of the bracket as Roger, but that potential match is the one that interests me the most. I can’t stand watchin Nadal and his constant wedgies.

And FTR, I think Federer is the best player of the modern era. And I think Sampras is a distant second.

9

As a fan of both the Jets and Giants, I have games to watch all Sunday long. On that Sunday Jets are 1:00pm, Giants 4:15pm. With the Giants on I probably won’t even switch over during commericals.

I put Sampras behind Federer, but “a distant second” is a little strong, IMO.

10

It’s always that same Sunday, which is unfortunate.

Most people seem to be giving it to him at this point, since he’s won the French and has more majors than Sampras, with a few years to add to his total. And he’s still got a chance to set the record for most weeks at #1.

It’s interesting to see that debate play out. Federer had a lot of support even before he broke the record. The way I remember it, even after Sampras set the championship record, there were a lot of people who still felt Laver was the best, and Sampras only got the “title” gradually over the next few years.

11

  1. Sampras made it to the semis in the French once, in 1996.

  2. Federer is pretty much the best ever, considering his streak of semifinals in majors, and how many he has won.

12

At this point probably the biggest argument against Federer is his negative record against Nadal. While I personally think he is the all-time greatest, it is admittedly a little odd to confer that title to someone who has been bested by a player of his own generation. If he can improve his record against a fit Nadal especially in slam finals it will strengthen his case. Of course we will have to wait and see if Nadal will ever regain his best form.

13

Disregarding the current possibility of Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus is clearly the best golfer ever. Yet, on a head-to-head basis, Tom Watson clearly had his number, especially at the British Open (though many of us agonizingly remember a certain chip-in at a certain 17th hole to win a certain US Open :mad:).

14

Federer’s head to head record with Nadal listed here.

Nadal doesn’t own Federer. Nadal owns Federer on clay. If Federer can’t be the best ever because Nadal owns him on clay, what does that say about Sampras? Everybody owned Sampras on clay. Compared to Federer, Sampras was incompetent on clay. Federer is clearly the second best clay court player in the world, and has been for years.

Sampras got the title of best ever despite sucking on clay. Federer is excellent on clay, while the rest of his game is a match for Sampras. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

15

It’s actually Bill Tilden who won the U.S. Open six times in a row. William Renshaw is tied with Sampras for the most Wimbledon titles, with seven.

Nadal is a great, great player, and I don’t think Federer’s poor record against him can be viewed as a big strike against Federer. The closest thing to a strike, maybe. We don’t know how long Nadal will last but he’s in the argument for best clay court player ever, at least at his peak. There’s no shame for Federer in having a negative record against the guy. He matches up well with Federer and he’s got the makings of a historic resume already, although I think the chances he plays until he’s 28 or passes Federer’s slam record are zero.

So I don’t think the head-to-head thing is an argument against Federer being the best. If you’re the top player you can only lose to lesser players, and sometimes a guy who is clearly not as good will just have your number. Sampras had a good record against Andre Agassi (20-14) and the other elite players of his era, but he was only 7-6 against Wayne Ferreira, and lost 5 out of 9 matches with Michael Stich and 6 out of 10 against Richard Krajicek. You can’t beat everybody all the time- and Nadal is much closer to Federer’s level than those guys were to Sampras’. (Stats from here.)

If Nadal reached the finals of more hardcourt and grass tournaments he would probably still have a winning record against Federer, but it would be closer to even.

It’s more or less impossible to say anything new about Federer with numbers or to make up a new argument for him being the best. There’s so much analysis out there. But we’re used to having him around now, and it’s tough to remember that some of what he’s done was just unthinkable before he did it. It is hard to explain how crazy it is that in 2005 and 2006 combined, he went 173-9. He won 95 percent of his matches for two years, took five slams and 18 other tournaments in those years alone, and of course, he was ranked number one every single week, just as he was for most of the year before and for a year and a half after. Who thought that was even possible?

16

I have to eat some crow here: Sampras actually did have two years that were pretty similar to Federer’s best. In 1993 and 1994, he won five slams and 23 titles overall, just like Federer. He wasn’t number one throughout the whole period - Courier had it for about 18 weeks in ‘93 - and Sampras’ winning percentage was 85 (162-28). But overall Federer’s 4 1/2-year run at the top blows everybody else away on consistency.

17

Looking up #1 rankings, Sampras is the all-time record holder with 286. Federer needs another 41 weeks at #1 to tie that.

18

That’s a good point. IMO Federer has done enough to justify the all-time no.1 ranking but there are a number of boxes he can tick to strengthen his case further. Every additional slam he wins is a tick. Improving his non-clay record against Nadal particularly in slam finals would be another. Beating the Sampras record for weeks as no.1 would be a third.

I think the Federer/Nadal head to head could become relevant if Nadal approaches the career achievements of Federer. Say Federer ends up with 18 slams and Nadal with 15 but Nadal ends up 10-5 up on Federer outside clay with near-total domination on clay. Then I think you could make a reasonable case that Nadal was the greater player.

19

Agreed completely, Lantern. The thing about Nadal is that his play style lends itself to shining very bright but burning out quickly, so I don’t see him having anywhere near the career of a Federer, Sampras, Connors, etc…

20

The NYT is in full Federer mode with an article about his footworkand his fashionsense.