The US Open is almost here! We have reached the final major of the 2019 season and players will have one more chance to win a grand slam before the season's end. While in previous blog posts this season, I have done draw breakdowns for the majors, I am going to stray a little from that here. I will be giving my general thoughts about the draw first, before moving on to predictions a very brief analysis.
Don't Be Surprised If:
1. The Big 3 are in the semifinals of a major again
You definitely shouldn't be surprised by this, but I'm just putting it in here for completeness' sake. The Big 3, consisting of Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer, and Rafael Nadal, are head-and-shoulders above the rest of the field in the best-of-five format. During both the French Open and Wimbledon, three of the four semifinalists were the members of the Big 3, and 5 of the 6 major finalists this season were members of the Big 3. It just doesn't seem fair, but it's reality.
Beating these guys during majors, where the best-of-five format takes away some of the variability in results, has been close to impossible for the vast majority of the field. Sure, a guy like Kyrgios could theoretically do it, but what are the chances he even makes it to the first Big 3 member he would face, Rafael Nadal, in the semifinals? Very slim.
2. Grigor Dimitrov has a very good tournament
Dimitrov has been at the butt of jokes this year, given his horrid form, losing seven of his previous eight non-exhibition matches, with a close win over Steve Johnson in Los Cabos his only win. But, with that said, he looked much better last week in Cincinnati against Wawrinka, coming within a tiebreak of beating the three-time major champion.
Dimitrov's draw is also very favorable. Getting an out-of-form Andreas Seppi in the first round is not bad at all, and the potential seeds he would face are not the most intimidating group to play right now (Borna Coric, Milos Raonic, and Kei Nishikori). Raonic retired from his last match in Montreal with injury, while Coric and Nishikori both did not look to be near their best form in Cincinnati. If Dimitrov can beat Seppi and gain some momentum, he could play himself in the form he needs to make a deep run.
3. Alexander Zverev and Stefanos Tsitsipas Both Lose in the First Round
No. 5 seed Alexander Zverev has a very tough first round opponent in Radu Albot. Having won a hard court ATP title in Delray Beach and having had a solid summer hard court, Albot won't be an easy out for Zverev. Albot recently beat Marin Cilic in Cincinnati, getting a ton of balls back in play and counterpunching well. Zverev might feel the need to try to end points early and get some more juice on his serve. This might not be the best idea, given that he hit 20 double faults in his previous match in Cincinnati against Miomir Kecmanovic. Zverev has also not adjusted to the best-of-five format as well as his ranking and other accolades would suggest. He's never been past the quarterfinals of a major, and never been to the quarterfinals away from Roland Garros.
No. 8 seed Stefanos Tsitsipas is at a bit of a summer standstill. He's just 3-3 since Wimbledon and has lost his last three matches. He faces one of the most dangerous floaters in the draw, Andrey Rublev. Rublev made the quarterfinals of Cincinnati, beating Roger Federer along the way. In addition, Rublev went to the quarterfinals of Winston-Salem before eventually losing to Denis Shapovalov. This feels like the makings of an upset with Rublev high in confidence, and Tsitsipas lower in confidence. While following the French Open, it seemed the gulf between these players was massive, it does not feel that way anymore.
4. Roberto Bautista Agut Gets to Another Slam Semifinal
Roberto Bautista Agut surprised many when he reached the Wimbledon semifinal, but perhaps, the only thing surprising about it was that his first major semifinal was on grass instead of hard (his best surface). Roberto Bautista Agut's game isn't based on hot shots, or blowing his opponents off the court, but instead is based on consistency, placement, and patience. Bautista Agut hits a fairly flat ball, spreads his shots around the court well, and waits for his opening to attack. Bautista Agut's speed around court is also very impressive and opponents often will press too hard in an effort to get balls past him, trying to create openings when there aren't any available.
Bautista Agut's draw is manageable. The draw in his 16th of the draw is Matteo Berrettini, who is out of form, and who might not even make it to Bautista Agut in the third round. A potential round of 16 match against Rublev, Tsitsipas, or Kyrgios wouldn't be easy, but you I expect Bautista Agut to out-grind any of the players mentioned. A matchup with Thiem or Monfils in the quarterfinals would also be tough. Thiem and Monfils, however, has not been hot-and-cold recently. Monfils did beat Bautista Agut in the Montreal quarterfinal, but I don't trust his fitness over the course of a best-of-five match.
5. Qualifier Hyeon Chung Plays Rafael Nadal Close in the Third Round
Current World No. 151 Hyeon Chung has been injured for much of the past year, but when he's playing well, he's an extremely difficult player to deal with. Chung is best known for making the semifinals of the 2018 Australian Open, beating Novak Djokovic along the way in straight sets. Chung has won nine Challenger titles in his career, no easy feat, including a straight sets win over Yuichi Sugita in Chengdu during his comeback earlier this month.
During qualifying, Chung destroyed his opponents, giving up no more than three games in a set and easily advancing to the main draw. It's clear that Chung is quickly elevating his game up to levels of his past. Chung's game is effective due to his footspeed, anticipation, and footwork, especially on hard courts. He has good strength, as well, often getting power on balls that he initially looks out of position to get a good hit on.
Chung's first round against Ernesto Escobedo won't be easy. Escobedo recently won a Challenger title himself and when his game is clicking, can hit opponents off of the court. However, I expect Chung to counterpunch well in that match and come through it. In the second round, Chung would play either Fernando Verdasco or Tobias Kamke. Verdasco retired from his most recent match in Cincinnati against Benoit Paire and is not in the best form coming into this tournament. Kamke is also a qualifier and doesn't have the weapons to beat Chung.
Then, in the third round, there would most likely be a showdown between Hyeon Chung and Rafael Nadal. While Nadal certainly looked impressive in winning Toronto, he will find it difficult to hit through Chung's defenses, just as Djokovic struggled at the Australian Open a couple years ago. Chung will come into the match with both the confidence and big-match major experience that will cause him to be less intimidated by Nadal. Nadal's extreme-topspin forehand to the Chung backhand won't be as effective as Nadal would like, as Chung is able to move to his backhand and strike it very cleanly.
With that said, it probably won't be enough to beat an in-form Nadal. But, I expect Chung to keep the match close, winning at least one set and keeping two of the other sets close. However, don't be shocked if this is a five-setter.
My Favorite First Round Matchup
Felix Auger-Aliassime vs Denis Shapovalov
Yes, it seems kind of cheesy for me to pick this All-Canadian matchup featuring the two young stars that we saw in this exact stage last season, but it really is a compelling match. Shapovalov won last year's match in a retirement, with Shapovalov up 4-1 in the third set. The match is well-known for their emotional embrace following the match. No. 18 seed Auger-Aliassime got his revenge this year, beating Shapovalov in straight sets in Madrid.
Shapovalov has really struggled since making the Miami semifinals, having failed to win two matches in a row since Miami. However, Shapovalov recently added Mikhail Youzhny to his team in a coaching trial, and has looked much better in Winston-Salem, winning three matches in a row in straight sets to make the semifinals. While he lost to Hubert Hurkacz, this was a very good week for Shapovalov. Auger-Aliassime played very well for a long period of time this season, making three ATP Tour final. However, he has cooled down a bit since losing in the third round of Wimbledon, going 3-3 during the summer hard court season.
Tough to choose a winner in this one. You could make a convincing case for either player. I think Shapovalov has gotten himself in better form than Auger-Aliassime recently, and because of this, I am picking Shapovalov to win this one.
Predictions
Quarterfinals
Djokovic over Medvedev in 4
Federer over Dimitrov in 3
Bautista Agut over Monfils in 5
Nadal over Schwartzman in 4
Semifinals
Djokovic over Federer in 5
Nadal over Bautista Agut in 4
Final
Djokovic over Nadal in 4
I have basically given my rational for the four semifinalists in my blurbs above. The Big 3 are just so much better than the rest of the field and Bautista Agut is in the form of his life and I trust him to win more than I trust the rest of the field, sans the Big 3. Medvedev gets major props for winning Cincinnati (beating Djokovic in the process), along with making the finals of Washington DC and Montreal. However, I don't think he will be able to redline over the course of best-off-five like he did against Djokovic in Cincinnati with the best-of-three format, and we saw in Australia that Medvedev will not be able to wear Djokovic down from the baseline in the best-of-five format.
In terms of the semifinals, I think that the loss to Djokovic at Wimbledon holds a lot of scar tissue for Federer and that Federer hasn't completely recovered, mentally, from that match. In another tight, huge match at a major against Djokovic, I just trust Djokovic more to come through in the big moments. Djokovic is in Federer's head, at this point. While Bautista Agut can out-grind many of his opponents, Rafael Nadal is not one of them. Nadal is much more of a dynamic shot-maker compared to Bautista-Agut, and shoudl be able to hit with as enough angles and variety to throw off Bautista-Agut. I look for Nadal to win that match without too much worry.
I can't pick Nadal to beat Djokovic after the final in Australia. Djokovic absolutely dominated that match and has won his last six straight sets in major finals on hard courts, winning both last year's Australian Open and the 2018 US Open (against Juan Martin del Potro) in straight sets. Yes, I have Djokovic playing 5 sets the match before against Federer, but a day' in-between matches should be enough, and I like Djokovic to win his third major of the year, and 17th major overall.
Novak Djokovic will be your 2019 US Open champion!
Showing posts with label Grigor Dimitrov. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Grigor Dimitrov. Show all posts
Friday, August 23, 2019
Monday, February 26, 2018
Diego Schwartzman Continues To Impress in Rio de Janeiro
Over the past few days, Howard Bryant and I got into a little bit of an argument over this tweet regarding Monfils' match against Diego Schwartzman. Although, in hindsight, it doesn't seem like Bryant was intentionally being disrespectful to Schwartzman, by essentially reprimading Monfils for losing to Schwartzman, a player that previously took Monfils to five sets in the 2015 French Open, it sets the narrative that Schwartzman is some nobody who lacks the the talent that Monfils has.
But, this article is not saying that Monfils is not talented or that Howard Bryant doesn't know what he's talking about. Because both of those wouldn't be correct. Monfils is an extremely talented player and I truly believe, after exchanging tweets with Bryant that he didn't mean to come across as demeaning regarding Schwartzman. Instead, I was inspired by Bryant's tweet, and I want to use this article as a way to honor Schwartzman for his incredible achievements.
There has always been something fascinating, something really extraordinary, about short athletes doing great things. That's why an NBA players like Nate Robinson was so cool to watch, or how spectacular it is to see Drew Brees play the QB position in the supreme manner that he does. And the same principle goes for Diego Schwartzman.
At Diego's height of 5 foot, seven inches, upon first glance, it would not appear that Schwartzman could compete with many modern day tennis players. In today's game, it feels as if big serves and crushing forehands are the only way to play the game, and the variety of the past had been thrown out of the window.
Schwartzman goes against that logic, which is, perhaps, why his game is so refreshing. Now, I'm not saying that he can't serve big or that his forehand is weak. That is far from the case. Schwartzman did hit a couple of aces yesterday and his groundstrokes are very heavy and cause opponents many difficulties. But, what I'm trying to convey is that modern day player, at least in the eyes of the public, is more like John Isner and less like Diego Schwartzman, who also frequently uses variety and endurance in rallies to win his matches.
At least in my eyes, Schwartzman first came onto the scene when he battled Roger Federer in a clay court tournament in Istanbul in 2015. Sure, Schwartzman had been tearing up the clay court Challenger circuit, and had beat players like Alexander Zverev, Thiago Monteiro, and Jerzy Janowicz in his career, but he had yet to sustain a deep run in an ATP Tournament, as he had mostly been grinding through Challenger and Futures tournaments (successfully).
In that Semifinals match with Federer, after not being able to take a set in his two prior matches with Roger, easily took the first set, and played a very close third set, losing 7-5 in the third. It's a match like that, despite the loss, that can prove to a player, in their own mind, that they can compete at the level needed to be successful on the ATP World Tour. And, I have a feeling that this could very well have been the case for Schwartzman.
Over the next year, Schwartzman continued to battle his way through Challenger tournaments and onto the main tour, beating players like Berlocq, Dolgopolov, and Muller. Then, in Istanbul the year following the Federer match, he had his breakthrough. Diego fought hard, winning three set battles over Dzumhur and Delbonis in the Quarterfinals and Semifinals before coming back to beat Grigor Dimitrov in a three setter, which featured a bagel in the third set (although that was partially due to code violations from Grigor, which were partially due to Schwartzman's incredible consistency).
Winning an ATP World Tour title was an amazing feat for Schwartzman, especially given the narrative that short people can't compete at the level necessary to play professional tennis. But, unfortunately due to Dimitrov's code violations, the spotlight was placed too much on Grigor and not enough on Diego. The match was thought of more as "Did you see Grigor Dimitrov melt down?" than "Diego Schwartzman played an incredible match and tournament".
But, that was not the end of the story for Diego. His level continued to rise. Schwartzman continued to win Challengers, and in addition, he made the Final of the ATP World Tour tournament in Antwerp, a tournament in which he beat Pablo Cuevas and David Goffin, before losing in the Final to Richard Gasquet. Schwartzman made the Final of Antwerp again last year, losing a fairly competitive match to Jo-Wilfred Tsonga. Schwartzman also had impressive wins in 2017 over players like Karen Karen Khachanov, David Ferrer (twice), Roberto Bautista Agut, Dominic Thiem, and Marin Cilic, along with Lucas Pouille as part of Schwartzman's first run to a Grand Slam quarterfinal at the US Open.
But, still, Schwartzman had one title that was thought of, in the general public, as more of the "Grigor Dimitrov meltdown" match than the "Diego Schwartzman" first title match.
That's why, in addition to Rio being Schwartzman's first ATP World Tour title at the 500 level, this title was so special for Diego. And it wasn't like Schwartzman had an easy road either. Playing guys like Gael Monfils and Fernando Verdasco on clay are brutal. Verdasco, for instance, had destroyed this week's Buenos Aires champion, and last year's French Open semifinalist, Dominic Thiem, 6-4, 6-0 in a prior round. But, Schwartzman took him out as if it were no problem, losing only five games in a straight set win. In fact, Schwartzman didn't lose a set all tournament. It was a spectacular tournament for Schwartzman and sets up the rest of the season very nicely for him.
I can't help but wonder how far Schwartzman can go. I'm sure pundits will continue to discount him due to his height, but that hasn't stopped him previously and it won't stop him in future tournaments. As I said on tennis twitter yesterday, there is only one player on clay that I don't think Schwartzman can beat, Rafael Nadal. So, with any clay tournament he plays, if Nadal is upset, I give Diego a great chance to win the tournament.
Obviously, this does not mean that I think Schwartzman is the second-favorite after Nadal to win a clay court masters event or the French Open. It just means that I think he has a big shot at it, if Nadal loses. But, I also don't want to discount Schwartzman's credentials on hard court. After all, he did make the Final of Antwerp twice, including a great win over Goffin in 2016, and his Quarterfinals run in the US Open in 2017 once again proved that he isn't a clay court-only type of player. Sure, Diego won't be tearing it up on a grass court, but he is extremely good on hard courts too.
For me, with Diego Schwartzman, the word that comes to mind is "impressive". Given his height, given the modern game where power is valued over anything else, it is so impressive to see Schwartzman's continued good results. Schwartzman can absorb and then redirect the powerful groundstrokes of his opponent better than almost anyone else on tour, and it is a pleasure to watch.
Keep impressing, Diego!
But, this article is not saying that Monfils is not talented or that Howard Bryant doesn't know what he's talking about. Because both of those wouldn't be correct. Monfils is an extremely talented player and I truly believe, after exchanging tweets with Bryant that he didn't mean to come across as demeaning regarding Schwartzman. Instead, I was inspired by Bryant's tweet, and I want to use this article as a way to honor Schwartzman for his incredible achievements.
There has always been something fascinating, something really extraordinary, about short athletes doing great things. That's why an NBA players like Nate Robinson was so cool to watch, or how spectacular it is to see Drew Brees play the QB position in the supreme manner that he does. And the same principle goes for Diego Schwartzman.
At Diego's height of 5 foot, seven inches, upon first glance, it would not appear that Schwartzman could compete with many modern day tennis players. In today's game, it feels as if big serves and crushing forehands are the only way to play the game, and the variety of the past had been thrown out of the window.
Schwartzman goes against that logic, which is, perhaps, why his game is so refreshing. Now, I'm not saying that he can't serve big or that his forehand is weak. That is far from the case. Schwartzman did hit a couple of aces yesterday and his groundstrokes are very heavy and cause opponents many difficulties. But, what I'm trying to convey is that modern day player, at least in the eyes of the public, is more like John Isner and less like Diego Schwartzman, who also frequently uses variety and endurance in rallies to win his matches.
At least in my eyes, Schwartzman first came onto the scene when he battled Roger Federer in a clay court tournament in Istanbul in 2015. Sure, Schwartzman had been tearing up the clay court Challenger circuit, and had beat players like Alexander Zverev, Thiago Monteiro, and Jerzy Janowicz in his career, but he had yet to sustain a deep run in an ATP Tournament, as he had mostly been grinding through Challenger and Futures tournaments (successfully).
In that Semifinals match with Federer, after not being able to take a set in his two prior matches with Roger, easily took the first set, and played a very close third set, losing 7-5 in the third. It's a match like that, despite the loss, that can prove to a player, in their own mind, that they can compete at the level needed to be successful on the ATP World Tour. And, I have a feeling that this could very well have been the case for Schwartzman.
Over the next year, Schwartzman continued to battle his way through Challenger tournaments and onto the main tour, beating players like Berlocq, Dolgopolov, and Muller. Then, in Istanbul the year following the Federer match, he had his breakthrough. Diego fought hard, winning three set battles over Dzumhur and Delbonis in the Quarterfinals and Semifinals before coming back to beat Grigor Dimitrov in a three setter, which featured a bagel in the third set (although that was partially due to code violations from Grigor, which were partially due to Schwartzman's incredible consistency).
Winning an ATP World Tour title was an amazing feat for Schwartzman, especially given the narrative that short people can't compete at the level necessary to play professional tennis. But, unfortunately due to Dimitrov's code violations, the spotlight was placed too much on Grigor and not enough on Diego. The match was thought of more as "Did you see Grigor Dimitrov melt down?" than "Diego Schwartzman played an incredible match and tournament".
But, that was not the end of the story for Diego. His level continued to rise. Schwartzman continued to win Challengers, and in addition, he made the Final of the ATP World Tour tournament in Antwerp, a tournament in which he beat Pablo Cuevas and David Goffin, before losing in the Final to Richard Gasquet. Schwartzman made the Final of Antwerp again last year, losing a fairly competitive match to Jo-Wilfred Tsonga. Schwartzman also had impressive wins in 2017 over players like Karen Karen Khachanov, David Ferrer (twice), Roberto Bautista Agut, Dominic Thiem, and Marin Cilic, along with Lucas Pouille as part of Schwartzman's first run to a Grand Slam quarterfinal at the US Open.
But, still, Schwartzman had one title that was thought of, in the general public, as more of the "Grigor Dimitrov meltdown" match than the "Diego Schwartzman" first title match.
That's why, in addition to Rio being Schwartzman's first ATP World Tour title at the 500 level, this title was so special for Diego. And it wasn't like Schwartzman had an easy road either. Playing guys like Gael Monfils and Fernando Verdasco on clay are brutal. Verdasco, for instance, had destroyed this week's Buenos Aires champion, and last year's French Open semifinalist, Dominic Thiem, 6-4, 6-0 in a prior round. But, Schwartzman took him out as if it were no problem, losing only five games in a straight set win. In fact, Schwartzman didn't lose a set all tournament. It was a spectacular tournament for Schwartzman and sets up the rest of the season very nicely for him.
I can't help but wonder how far Schwartzman can go. I'm sure pundits will continue to discount him due to his height, but that hasn't stopped him previously and it won't stop him in future tournaments. As I said on tennis twitter yesterday, there is only one player on clay that I don't think Schwartzman can beat, Rafael Nadal. So, with any clay tournament he plays, if Nadal is upset, I give Diego a great chance to win the tournament.
Obviously, this does not mean that I think Schwartzman is the second-favorite after Nadal to win a clay court masters event or the French Open. It just means that I think he has a big shot at it, if Nadal loses. But, I also don't want to discount Schwartzman's credentials on hard court. After all, he did make the Final of Antwerp twice, including a great win over Goffin in 2016, and his Quarterfinals run in the US Open in 2017 once again proved that he isn't a clay court-only type of player. Sure, Diego won't be tearing it up on a grass court, but he is extremely good on hard courts too.
For me, with Diego Schwartzman, the word that comes to mind is "impressive". Given his height, given the modern game where power is valued over anything else, it is so impressive to see Schwartzman's continued good results. Schwartzman can absorb and then redirect the powerful groundstrokes of his opponent better than almost anyone else on tour, and it is a pleasure to watch.
Keep impressing, Diego!
Saturday, December 23, 2017
Will Jack Sock Sustain His Success?
2017 in the tennis season concluded with many heart-warming stories. Lucas Pouille came through in the clutch to beat Steve Darcis in the decisive fifth rubber at Davis Cup. David Goffin finally seemed to turn a corner in his career, beating Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer in the ATP Finals, and then beating Lucas Pouille and Jo-Wilfred Tsonga in Davis Cup. Grigor Dimitrov played, arguably, the best week of tennis in his career when he took the ATP Finals crown, going undefeated in the process.
But, for me, the biggest story at the end of season was Jack Sock's emergence as a threat to anyone he plays and his incredible successes to close out what was, beforehand, a forgettable season. Before playing in the Masters 1000 event in Bercy, Sock hadn't played great tennis. He hadn't made the Semifinals of a tournament since Washington before the hard court, summer Masters 1000 tournaments, a tournament in which he managed to embarrass himself by questioning the surface on which the tournament was played. It seemed as if Sock would meekly finish out 2017 before looking to turn things around in the new year.
But, Jack was not going to accept that script. His game started to come together in his first match in Paris. Played off the main court, Jack took on Kyle Edmund in a rematch from an earlier meeting in Atlanta where Kyle easily took care of Sock 6-4, 6-1. And it looked as if Sock's season would be ending soon when Edmund took a 5-1 lead in the third set.
But, Jack did not quit. I've questioned Jack's work ethic in the past, but I must give him credit, in this match he did not give up. Watching the tiebreak, which ended 7-5 in Sock's favor, I couldn't get over the attacking, physical style of tennis he played. He wouldn't let Edmund really get into the tiebreak, despite the deceivingly-close score. Once Jack got the mini-break to lead 4-2 in the tiebreak, one could sense the match was over.
From there, Jack beat Lucas Pouille in straight sets before taking on Verdasco. Fernando won the first set in a tiebreak and, again, it would have been easy for Jack to mail it in and call it a season. But, again, Jack refused to go down. Sock dominated the last two sets for a three-set victory. Then Sock took down hometown favotite Julien Benneteau in straight sets before playing Filip Krajinovic in the Final.
It was surely tough on Jack to have to take on Krajinovic. Sock was seen as the heavy favorite in this match, and given that a trip to the ATP Finals, was on the line, this was surely mentally tough on him. But after losing a tight first set, Sock played the best tennis I've ever seen him play and easily won the final two sets. Sock had now won three matches in the tournament having lost the first set.
And, instead of resting on his laurels after such an impressive tournament, Sock kept up his high level of play in the ATP Finals. He played Roger Federer tough in his first match and then, with elimination lurking, he came back from a break down in the third set to beat Marin Cilic in a third set tiebreak.
Sock would then take on Alexander Zverev, a top three player in the world, with the winner advancing on to the Semifinals. Sock won the first set before playing a terrible second set and getting down a break in the third. In addition, Sock got a point penalty early in the third set. Everything was seemingly go against Jack and, once again, Jack could have just played out the cards and go into the offseason feeling good about himself.
But, Jack wouldn't give up. Jack came back and won the match 6-4, breaking for the in at 5-4 up, to go on to the Semifinals against Grigor Dimitrov. And while he lost the match, he still took the first set over Grigor and proved, once again, that he could compete against the best in the world. Jack Sock had proven to the world that he could be a force in the coming years.
But, will Jack Sock sustain his success? This is then natural question after such great success which, at least from an outside perspective, seems to have come out of nowhere. For Jack, I think the key to success is making sure that his fitness is high. That has been a question mark in the past, and it will be interesting to see if Jack continues to show a high level of fitness when not in the climate controlled conditions that indoor tennis produces.
Another interesting question is how Jack Sock handles the pressure of being the top American male tennis player. For a very long time, John Isner has been the top male American tennis player, and now Jack will be tasked with leading what was once the top country in male tennis. Jack seems like an easy-going guy, so the pressure that produces shouldn't be a problem for him, but it is a question that needs to be asked.
Something else to look for is whether or not Jack can consistently compete at the level he competed with at the end of the season. It's one thing to win a Masters 1000 event and then do well in the next tournament, but it's a whole different ball game to keep those successes coming. Earlier in the season, when Jack had some successes in Indian Wells and Miami, he followed that up with a disappointing loss to Jordan Thompson in Davis Cup.
And while he did make the Semifinals of Houston in the following tournament, he then didn't Semifinals of a tournament (nor win more than two matches in a tournament) until Washington, which was then followed by some more poor results. So, it will be interesting to see if Jack can get some sustained success to start 2018. If Jack starts off strong through the Australian Open, then thoughts of the next American grand slam champion will come into view.
He needs to have the right attitude, though. That outburst that I mentioned earlier is not the type of behavior typically seen in champions. Sock's game is not on the level of a guy like John McEnroe or Jimmy Connors, he can't be losing his focus on issues such as the condition of the court. But, I think that, given what we have seen at the end of the season, winning a slam is certainly a possibility.
With a continuation of good fitness and with a good attitude, I believe that Jack Sock can win at least one slam and sustain his success.
But, for me, the biggest story at the end of season was Jack Sock's emergence as a threat to anyone he plays and his incredible successes to close out what was, beforehand, a forgettable season. Before playing in the Masters 1000 event in Bercy, Sock hadn't played great tennis. He hadn't made the Semifinals of a tournament since Washington before the hard court, summer Masters 1000 tournaments, a tournament in which he managed to embarrass himself by questioning the surface on which the tournament was played. It seemed as if Sock would meekly finish out 2017 before looking to turn things around in the new year.
But, Jack was not going to accept that script. His game started to come together in his first match in Paris. Played off the main court, Jack took on Kyle Edmund in a rematch from an earlier meeting in Atlanta where Kyle easily took care of Sock 6-4, 6-1. And it looked as if Sock's season would be ending soon when Edmund took a 5-1 lead in the third set.
But, Jack did not quit. I've questioned Jack's work ethic in the past, but I must give him credit, in this match he did not give up. Watching the tiebreak, which ended 7-5 in Sock's favor, I couldn't get over the attacking, physical style of tennis he played. He wouldn't let Edmund really get into the tiebreak, despite the deceivingly-close score. Once Jack got the mini-break to lead 4-2 in the tiebreak, one could sense the match was over.
From there, Jack beat Lucas Pouille in straight sets before taking on Verdasco. Fernando won the first set in a tiebreak and, again, it would have been easy for Jack to mail it in and call it a season. But, again, Jack refused to go down. Sock dominated the last two sets for a three-set victory. Then Sock took down hometown favotite Julien Benneteau in straight sets before playing Filip Krajinovic in the Final.
It was surely tough on Jack to have to take on Krajinovic. Sock was seen as the heavy favorite in this match, and given that a trip to the ATP Finals, was on the line, this was surely mentally tough on him. But after losing a tight first set, Sock played the best tennis I've ever seen him play and easily won the final two sets. Sock had now won three matches in the tournament having lost the first set.
And, instead of resting on his laurels after such an impressive tournament, Sock kept up his high level of play in the ATP Finals. He played Roger Federer tough in his first match and then, with elimination lurking, he came back from a break down in the third set to beat Marin Cilic in a third set tiebreak.
Sock would then take on Alexander Zverev, a top three player in the world, with the winner advancing on to the Semifinals. Sock won the first set before playing a terrible second set and getting down a break in the third. In addition, Sock got a point penalty early in the third set. Everything was seemingly go against Jack and, once again, Jack could have just played out the cards and go into the offseason feeling good about himself.
But, Jack wouldn't give up. Jack came back and won the match 6-4, breaking for the in at 5-4 up, to go on to the Semifinals against Grigor Dimitrov. And while he lost the match, he still took the first set over Grigor and proved, once again, that he could compete against the best in the world. Jack Sock had proven to the world that he could be a force in the coming years.
But, will Jack Sock sustain his success? This is then natural question after such great success which, at least from an outside perspective, seems to have come out of nowhere. For Jack, I think the key to success is making sure that his fitness is high. That has been a question mark in the past, and it will be interesting to see if Jack continues to show a high level of fitness when not in the climate controlled conditions that indoor tennis produces.
Another interesting question is how Jack Sock handles the pressure of being the top American male tennis player. For a very long time, John Isner has been the top male American tennis player, and now Jack will be tasked with leading what was once the top country in male tennis. Jack seems like an easy-going guy, so the pressure that produces shouldn't be a problem for him, but it is a question that needs to be asked.
Something else to look for is whether or not Jack can consistently compete at the level he competed with at the end of the season. It's one thing to win a Masters 1000 event and then do well in the next tournament, but it's a whole different ball game to keep those successes coming. Earlier in the season, when Jack had some successes in Indian Wells and Miami, he followed that up with a disappointing loss to Jordan Thompson in Davis Cup.
And while he did make the Semifinals of Houston in the following tournament, he then didn't Semifinals of a tournament (nor win more than two matches in a tournament) until Washington, which was then followed by some more poor results. So, it will be interesting to see if Jack can get some sustained success to start 2018. If Jack starts off strong through the Australian Open, then thoughts of the next American grand slam champion will come into view.
He needs to have the right attitude, though. That outburst that I mentioned earlier is not the type of behavior typically seen in champions. Sock's game is not on the level of a guy like John McEnroe or Jimmy Connors, he can't be losing his focus on issues such as the condition of the court. But, I think that, given what we have seen at the end of the season, winning a slam is certainly a possibility.
With a continuation of good fitness and with a good attitude, I believe that Jack Sock can win at least one slam and sustain his success.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Why Juan Martin Del Potro Should Receive a US Open Wildcard
A week ago, another Twitter poster, Baseline Bagels, and I got into a heated debate over whether Juan Martin Del Potro deserves a wildcard to the US Open. Del Potro would need a wildcard to the US Open because his ranking (at 142 in the live rankings currently) is not high enough to give him direct entry into the main draw, and I learned though that he is not using a PR because, I would assume, it has either expired or he has used it all up. I am vehement, however, that not only does Del Potro deserve a wildcard to the US Open, but that the US Open should be extremely enthusiastic about giving him one.
For starters, Del Potro is a former US Open champion. In 2009, Juan Martin won the event, beating an impressive group of players in the process. In the final three rounds of the tournament, he beat three slam champions (although only two at the time) in Marin Cilic, Rafael Nadal, and Roger Federer. Del Potro beat Nadal in straight sets, only losing six games, and came back from two-sets-to-one down in the Final to beat Federer. Coming into that Final with Federer, Del Potro had only lost two sets during the tournament.
So, with a resume like that, it seems obvious that Del Potro would receive a wildcard if his ranking is not high enough to have direct entry into the main draw. At only 27 years old, Del Potro is still in the prime of his career, and as wins this year over Stanislas Wawrinka, Dominic Thiem, Gilles Simon, and Grigor Dimitrov have shown, Del Potro is still capable of playing at a very high level and would certainly not be an easy First Round opponent for anyone.
Baseline Bagels tried to say that giving Del Potro a wildcard would be the same as giving one to former champion Lleyton Hewitt. However, besides the fact that Lleyton Hewitt has retired, he is also 35 years old and has not won consecutive singles matches since 2014. If Hewitt was 27 years old, then he would probably have an argument for receiving a wildcard, but Del Potro and Hewitt's situations are much different and should not be compared.
Another important thing to remember about Del Potro is that he is the only male slam, and US Open, champion from the Western Hemisphere (another difference between him and Hewitt) since Andy Roddick at the US Open in 2003. While he isn't an American, he is from the Americas and that is definitely something to keep in mind when deciding whether to give the wildcard to an American or Del Potro. Because, the crux of Baseline Bagel's argument is that the US Open is a place to develop American talent, and thus every non-reciprocal wildcard should be given to American players.
And in almost any other situation, I would wholeheartedly agree with Baseline Bagels. The United States has so many young, talented American players alongside many talented older Americans that have made their mark on tennis in the United States, that, even if Del Potro had a ranking that got him direct entry into the main draw, choosing the US Open wildcards would be extremely difficult. However, with a former champion, 27 years old, from the Americas not directly into the main draw, it is a no-brainer that Del Potro should receive a wildcard instead of any of the other candidates for that wildcard. In regards to the younger Americans, the American player not receiving a wildcard because Del Potro received one might be better off in the long run attempting to qualify (just as Del Potro had to qualify in the early stages of his career) for the US Open instead of being given a wildcard.
And, the US Open also doesn't have to worry that giving a wildcard to a non-American would mean less fans would be interested in the US Open, and specifically Juan Martin's matches. Del Potro already is a household name, he has huge fan support, and any match he plays in will be a huge draw.
For me, this is an easy decision for the USTA to make. The USTA should absolutely give Juan Martin Del Potro a US Open wildcard.
For starters, Del Potro is a former US Open champion. In 2009, Juan Martin won the event, beating an impressive group of players in the process. In the final three rounds of the tournament, he beat three slam champions (although only two at the time) in Marin Cilic, Rafael Nadal, and Roger Federer. Del Potro beat Nadal in straight sets, only losing six games, and came back from two-sets-to-one down in the Final to beat Federer. Coming into that Final with Federer, Del Potro had only lost two sets during the tournament.
So, with a resume like that, it seems obvious that Del Potro would receive a wildcard if his ranking is not high enough to have direct entry into the main draw. At only 27 years old, Del Potro is still in the prime of his career, and as wins this year over Stanislas Wawrinka, Dominic Thiem, Gilles Simon, and Grigor Dimitrov have shown, Del Potro is still capable of playing at a very high level and would certainly not be an easy First Round opponent for anyone.
Baseline Bagels tried to say that giving Del Potro a wildcard would be the same as giving one to former champion Lleyton Hewitt. However, besides the fact that Lleyton Hewitt has retired, he is also 35 years old and has not won consecutive singles matches since 2014. If Hewitt was 27 years old, then he would probably have an argument for receiving a wildcard, but Del Potro and Hewitt's situations are much different and should not be compared.
Another important thing to remember about Del Potro is that he is the only male slam, and US Open, champion from the Western Hemisphere (another difference between him and Hewitt) since Andy Roddick at the US Open in 2003. While he isn't an American, he is from the Americas and that is definitely something to keep in mind when deciding whether to give the wildcard to an American or Del Potro. Because, the crux of Baseline Bagel's argument is that the US Open is a place to develop American talent, and thus every non-reciprocal wildcard should be given to American players.
And in almost any other situation, I would wholeheartedly agree with Baseline Bagels. The United States has so many young, talented American players alongside many talented older Americans that have made their mark on tennis in the United States, that, even if Del Potro had a ranking that got him direct entry into the main draw, choosing the US Open wildcards would be extremely difficult. However, with a former champion, 27 years old, from the Americas not directly into the main draw, it is a no-brainer that Del Potro should receive a wildcard instead of any of the other candidates for that wildcard. In regards to the younger Americans, the American player not receiving a wildcard because Del Potro received one might be better off in the long run attempting to qualify (just as Del Potro had to qualify in the early stages of his career) for the US Open instead of being given a wildcard.
And, the US Open also doesn't have to worry that giving a wildcard to a non-American would mean less fans would be interested in the US Open, and specifically Juan Martin's matches. Del Potro already is a household name, he has huge fan support, and any match he plays in will be a huge draw.
For me, this is an easy decision for the USTA to make. The USTA should absolutely give Juan Martin Del Potro a US Open wildcard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)