Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US Open 2020

Options
12345679»

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Girly Gal wrote: »
    Agree, we've been spoilt by the big 3 for over a decade and a half, the next generation are clearly a step down even as the big 3 age. It's father time that will eventually finish off the big 3 not the next generation of players

    It doesn't mean that there won't be better quality finals in the future without the "big 3". There will be and they will play at a better level generally.

    The big 3 is already gone, it's Nadal at the French (probably) and Djokovic (at the moment) still at the top.


  • Options
    #243
    Girly Gal
    Registered Users Posts: 2,849 ✭✭✭Girly Gal


    glasso wrote: »
    It doesn't mean that there won't be better quality finals in the future without the "big 3". There will be and they will play at a better level generally.

    The big 3 is already gone, it's Nadal at the French (probably) and Djokovic (at the moment) still at the top.
    Would agree with that, similar to what I said in an earlier post, Federer is gone, it's between Nadal for next 2 FO and Djokovic all slams for next 2 seasons, one of the younger guys might get one in similar fashion to this US Open, would think after the next 2 seasons both Nadal and Djokovic will have dropped enough for the younger guys to win the slams.
    Of course there'e always the possibility of injuries and loss of form from both Djokovic and Nadal allowing the younger guys in earlier.


  • Options
    #244
    MisterAnarchy
    Registered Users Posts: 14,549 ✭✭✭✭MisterAnarchy


    glasso wrote: »
    It doesn't mean that there won't be better quality finals in the future without the "big 3". There will be and they will play at a better level generally.

    The big 3 is already gone, it's Nadal at the French (probably) and Djokovic (at the moment) still at the top.

    Federer still has a good chance at Wimbledon, he should have beaten Djokovic there last year, he was by far the better player in the final.

    Its hard to believe that Federer is 39 now, thats a geriatric in tennis terms .
    Sampras was 31 when he retired, Agassi 36 .
    He still has 4 more years to go to beat the oldest swinger in town Jimmy Connors.


  • Options
    #245
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    MisterAnarchy wrote: »
    Federer still has a good chance at Wimbledon, he should have beaten Djokovic there last year, he was by far the better player in the final.

    Its hard to believe that Federer is 39 now, thats a geriatric in tennis terms .
    Sampras was 31 when he retired, Agassi 36 .
    He still has 4 more years to go to beat the oldest swinger in town Jimmy Connors.

    Yes but he seems to have lost it mentally at the top level to throw it away like that at Wimbeldon. It's not just physical. Possibly he might have a chance next year at Wimbledon but I think that it's very conceivable that he could be beaten in the earlier rounds - someone like Tsitsipas for example if they are playing well. That's what has started happening to him - getting beaten before the semis in GS's whereas beforehand he would always get there.


  • Options
    #246
    Hector Savage
    Registered Users Posts: 8,810 ✭✭✭Hector Savage


    Feel bad for Zverev, but happy for Thiem at the same time, but tough to lose from a 2-0 position, apparently 1st time in USO history in the mens final it's happened.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    Girly Gal
    Registered Users Posts: 2,849 ✭✭✭Girly Gal


    MisterAnarchy wrote: »
    Federer still has a good chance at Wimbledon, he should have beaten Djokovic there last year, he was by far the better player in the final.

    Its hard to believe that Federer is 39 now, thats a geriatric in tennis terms .
    Sampras was 31 when he retired, Agassi 36 .
    He still has 4 more years to go to beat the oldest swinger in town Jimmy Connors.

    You're right about Federer, he should have won Wimbledon last year, he was the better player on the day, played all the tennis, but, Djokovic hung in there and won most of the big points. I would have given Federer a good chance of winning Wimbledon this year, but, next year, he'll be 40, coming back from a long lay off and it's also 2 years on from that Wimbledon final with Djokovic. I'd love to see Federer win another slam, but, the odds are stacked against him.


  • Options
    #248
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Girly Gal wrote: »
    You're right about Federer, he should have won Wimbledon last year, he was the better player on the day, played all the tennis, but, Djokovic hung in there and won most of the big points. I would have given Federer a good chance of winning Wimbledon this year, but, next year, he'll be 40, coming back from a long lay off and it's also 2 years on from that Wimbledon final with Djokovic. I'd love to see Federer win another slam, but, the odds are stacked against him.

    that's exactly why Djokovic is amazing - most clutch tennis player ever imo. even if he's not playing at his best he can raise his level for the key parts of the set.


  • Options
    #249
    Girly Gal
    Registered Users Posts: 2,849 ✭✭✭Girly Gal


    glasso wrote: »
    that's exactly why Djokovic is amazing - most clutch tennis player ever imo. even if he's not playing at his best he can raise his level for the key parts of the set.

    Djokovic and Nadal both play the big points better than Federer, throughout his career Federer's biggest weakness compared to the other two has been how he plays the big points, he generally got away with it against lesser players but, not against Nadal and Djokovic. Nadal has always had this ability, but, Djokovic has learned this and has even surpassed Nadal.


  • Options
    #250
    TFBubendorfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,340 ✭✭✭TFBubendorfer


    Yesterday's match was no reflection of either Zverev's or Thiem's real quality. They both are much better than that, but the occasion got to both of them and the lack of crowd didn't help either. As they get a bit older they will be more used to those situations and I don't think either will play as badly in a final ever again for a long time.

    The big 3 are definitively in their way out. Not out yet, but on their way. Thiem has beaten either of them on occasions, so it's not just waiting for them to disappear, the next generation is already making the step up.

    For the time being Djokovic is still the best player in men's tennis, but he is no spring chicken and I don't think he will last anywhere near as long as Federer did.


  • Options
    #251
    lostcat
    Registered Users Posts: 695 ✭✭✭lostcat


    It's also the fact that for the majorty of the match only one of them was playing well at a time (and with nerves, inexperience etc., I can accept that)

    Matches between the big three/four remain compelling because, generally, whichever two of them are playing generally show up and it takes an exceptional effort to win by the victor.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    whiterebel
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,841 Mod ✭✭✭✭whiterebel


    It was horrible to watch first Thiem and then Zverev come apart in the first 4 sets. If Thiem did have a problem with his achilles from the start, which I think he did, he deserves enormous respect. The amount of backhand slice he was playing may have been a consequence of that, then favouring that side put strain on the groin on the other side. Zverev second serve problem is terrible. I was cringing every time he had to 2nd serve. Hard to know who can help him to put it right.


  • Options
    #253
    MisterAnarchy
    Registered Users Posts: 14,549 ✭✭✭✭MisterAnarchy


    ESPN's ratings were down 45 percent for the whole event, with the women's final down 43 percent and the men's final down 48 percent.


  • Options
    #254
    yerwanthere123
    Registered Users, Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,316 Mod ✭✭✭✭yerwanthere123


    Some delayed comments on the men's final. Overall very happy with the result, I think Thiem needed to win more than Zverev. From Zverev's perspective it was a match of two halfs, first two sets reminded us of why he got to the final and why's he's been such a prospect, the remainder a reminder of what's stopped him being a grand slam contender.

    I mean for sure Thiem upped his level big time, but for Zverev to go right back to passive mode when things were no longer going his way was disappointing to see. And as for that tiebreaker when he rolled in a 68 mph second serve on match point.. :o Thiem was clearly just trying to draw errors too but maybe he had an excuse with his achilles? And if the achilles was a big problem then it's encouraging that he managed to will himself over the line in spite of it.

    What did ye make of the tournament overall? Whilst I was as sceptical as most were as to whether it was feasible, I must say I enjoyed every bit of it and I think the USTA did an amazing job. I really didn't think they'd pull it off. I totally got used to the lack of crowds too, and whilst I'd obviously like the crowds to return as soon as is safely possible, I can't say it took away from my enjoyment all that much, if at all. There were great matches, great stories and the usual dose of surprises/upsets. I actually enjoyed it a lot more than some of the more recent editions. Highlights for me would be the comebacks of Pironkova, Azarenka and Djokovic's default (yes I am that petty :pac:). On to (hopefully) RG!


Advertisement