eric hoone wrote: » Seems hard to predict but the more I think about it Stephens will win the ladies again. Sevastova did her a big favour beating svitolina. Serena hasn't beaten any grand slam winners this year except her sister this week. Don't see anyone who can lay a glove on Stephens from the bottom half of the draw. And you know horses for courses and all that...
ahayes84 wrote: » it's hard to disagree with you there. I can see serena really raising her game to beat Karolina Pliskova, especially considering karolina was the last player to beat her at the US open, and then being unable to maintain that level against stevens. Also stephens type of game troubles Serena the most, she gets a lot of balls back wihile being able to still hit with pace.
eric hoone wrote: » Oddly sevastova might be her hardest opponent to overcome as they had a very close match this stage last year but Stephens should win it again with that psychological edge
Chivito550 wrote: » The lavish praise of Sharapova by the commentators despite being a drug cheat is quite sickening to listen to. Imagine Tim Hutchins and Steve Cram constantly praising Justin Gatlin and just casually glossing over his drug ban. Would never happen! Tennis fans, media and many players don’t seem to care about doping. It’s the big elephant that is not even in the living room, but rather locked firmly away in the shed out of sight of visitors. Anyway, I was at the US Open last week and will post my experiences (which were almost completely positive) tomorrow when I’m not so tired.
Joe_ Public wrote: » I think part of the issue was, even if the drug wasn’t on the banned list, why was she taking it? It’s a drug for people with heart disease isn’t it, not one for fit young athletes at the peak of their careers. She gave some excuse of hereditary family illness in mitigation but I’m not sure how many people bought it. Plus, she’s based in the US so why go to Russia to source these drugs? It felt like the reason was purely performance enhancing and if not illegal, then it was at least against the spirit of fair play.
yerwanthere123 wrote: » Well that's the thing, it's patently obvious that the reasons she cited for taking it were bullsh*t. It's obvious that it was being taken for performance enhancing reasons. She knew it was ethically dubious herself, something made clear by the fact she declared things as trivial as Vitamin C in her forms yet never once Meldonium. However, at the end of the day, it was all perfectly legit, bar the Australian Open of course, so it's more an issue of how moral you view it to stretch legality to it's most extreme limits to gain an advantage. At the same time, I've always felt she shouldn't be hung out to dry, especially given the fact that she wasn't the only one on tour caught with Meldonium. Secondly, it's my belief that the type of 'doping' that Maria was doing is pretty widespread across the sport amongst most players, except she was the only one dumb enough to be caught.
Joe_ Public wrote: » I agree with much of what you say but I couldn’t have a shred of sympathy for her. Yes, it was only one tournament but how long more would she have taken it if she hadn’t been caught? Unless we are to swallow the story that this player, so meticulous about keeping abreast of the banned list, somehow completely missed the meldonium memo! Tennis has come some way in fairness. I recall a case maybe 10 years ago when Kuznetsova had a case to answer and a WTA guy was apologizing to her and berating journalists for having the temerity to ask her questions about it. Still has some way to go to yet though.
Joe_ Public wrote: » Anyway...the women’s has been very interesting and looks very open. I’d make Stephens favorite personally but whoever emerges from bottom half won’t be easily pushed aside. I still suspect Sabalenka is a better player but Osaka bested her fair and square and a sf with Keys would be a good match if it happens. Also give Pliskova a chance against Serena tonight. Not getting enough respect here from what I can see.
yerwanthere123 wrote: » I don't sympathise with her either. It's weird, because she was arguably my favourite player before the whole saga, but I went off her a lot after. Less so about her using Meldonium, but more so how she dealt with it and expected people to believe the nonsense she was peddling. And yes, I think we can believe that she missed the memo, and it's because barely anyone in her circle knew about it. Most would have an entire team to keep on top of these things, Maria had only her father and Max Eisenbud. Everyone else was in the dark, further underlining the fact that they all knew she shouldn't have been taking it. After the ban she made some ridiculous comment along the lines of "nobody told me it was about to be banned". Why would anyone tell you when you didn't tell anyone you were taking it, Maria? The thing is though, most players are probably doing the exact same stuff Maria is. Take all the TUE's that players get, how can we trust them? I would imagine there's a lot of doctors out there being well paid to write prescriptions for players who clearly don't need them. Far from rooting dopers out of the game, Maria's saga will probably help ensure they stay hidden.
dominatinMC wrote: » Jesus, woken up to the news that Federer was beaten by Millman! Apparently he played terribly, has time finally caught up with him? Tbf, he hasn't looked half as good this year as he did last year. Still I didn't expect him to loose to a journeyman like Millman on a HC
jr86 wrote: » Has shades of his defeat to Robredo here a few years ago. However he's 37 now not early 30s, so time isn't exactly on his side to bounce back again But as I said pre-tournament it doesn't surprise me to see him going out early here, even if - with all due respect - I wouldn't have thought it would take someone like Millman. Given he basically tailors his season around the grass now, it didn't bode well for the rest of his season (or maybe even his career) that he underperformed at Wimbledon
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » I'm hoping for Djokovic to have a brutal 5 setter under the unforgiving NYC sun, lots of breakers and be knackered - or ideally lose!
josip wrote: » Time for some more Serbian lessons Dabogda komsiji crkla krava (I hope my neighbour's cow dies) Pazi sta zeleš (Be careful what you wish for)
Chivito550 wrote: » So I had the pleasure of attending the US Open last week. I bought tickets in advance for Arthur Ashe evening session on the first Tuesday, and then Arthur Ashe day session on the Thursday (which allows you to go to any other court too). By pure fluke, I happened to have tickets to see Federer, not once, but twice. I’ve been to 4 Australian Opens and the closest I got to seeing the great man was on the practice courts, which was a great experience. However I never saw him play live. Instead of taking the risk and paying a lot of money for Rod Laver tickets and possibly not get to see him anyway, I always opted for the ground pass and the epic matches you’d get on the outside courts. I did happen to get onto Rod Laver after somebody left early and gave me his ticket, but by the time I got in, all I got was his post-match interview. Then the year I went to the French Open, and had Phillipe Chatrier tickets, he skipped the event entirely. He may be in decline now, but it was very special to get to see him play. I can always say I saw Federer play when he was still a current defending grand slam champion. Other than Federer on Ashe, I saw some of Kyrgios and Sharapova on Armstrong on the first night, and then on the full day I went, I caught bits of matches on Court 10, Court 5, got a cracking view of the magnificent Court 17, by standing at the top of the court beside it, saw Kerber on Ashe, and a couple of matches on Grandstand, including a bit of Cilic. The event itself is great. In terms of facilities, the US Open is the best of the 3 I have been to. State of the art venues, lots of space, endless food and drink stands. The Australian Open is pretty close in this department, but the French is miles off (though I’ll have to go back there after the redevelopment of Roland Garros). There were big crowds there but I didn’t have to queue to get onto any court I wanted to be on thankfully, with the exception of the Court 17, which I could see perfectly from a good vantage point overlooking it anyway. Labor Day weekend would have been a different story I’m sure. Beer was very expensive at $11.50 for a can of ice cold Heineken, or $10.50 for a Miller Lite, but when you are at an event like that you just sort of accept it and go with it. Food wasn’t cheap either but there was lots to choose from. This is an area Roland Garros needs to improve on, as the current food and drink options are absolutely terrible for a major event. Overall, I’d rank the US Open second best of the 3 slams I’ve been to. The Australian Open will always have a special place in my heart. The atmosphere of the US or French just doesn’t quite compare to the boisterous, harmlessly loutish, yet respectful, atmosphere you get on the outside courts in Melbourne. I’ve never known an atmosphere like the one generated by the “John Isner Barmy Army” in that epic Isner V Cilic match in 2011, which was just one of many incredible memories down there. I might be a bit biased because I lived there though, and went so often. But as a whole, the US Open ranks a comfortable second of the 3 I’ve been to. Only 2 negatives: 1) On the upper tier of Arthur Ashe and Armstrong you get a lot of people just walking in and out during play, and talking away loudly during play. Unlike the other slams, the officials do nothing about this, and don’t operate the policy of only letting people in and out during changes of ends. They do adopt this policy on the outside courts however thankfully. But on Ashe it was incredibly frustrating seeing people walking up and down stairs while Federer was playing. It made me feel further away from the action than I was, like there was a layer between me and the action. I moved down closer because of this, which helped, but the amount of talking was still as bad. It seems that Americans just can’t watch sport properly. They are so used to their sport broken up by ads, and the stop start nature of NFL and baseball that they actually can’t hold focus for more than a few minutes. This is a major negative. On the outside courts this is less of an issue thankfully. 2) You can’t bring a normal school bag type bag in. I never had this at the other slams. I had to go back to put it in a locker, and they had the cheek to charge people $5, unless you were an AMEX card holder. Other than those issues, it was a fantastic event. Now, just Wimbledon before I complete the ‘Spectator Grand Slam’. Mad that the one closest to me is the one I still haven’t been to.
