US Open 2013

End of first week: many here must be following. I had a ringside seat for Venus' valiant effort against Jie Zheng, and for James Blake's emotional but classy retirement match. Sadly, Venus has lost a step if not two. I know she's been injured, I know the Sjogren's Syndrome depletes her of energy, I know she's had precious little match play. But with all that, at 33, it's hard to imagine her ever competing again as, say, a top ten player. She's handled it gracefully, I must say.

Nadal has looked especially strong. I'm picking him. Then the usual suspects: Murray, Djoker, and let's not rule out a Federer run.

Serena will likely triumph -- she wants it so badly still! -- and there are few who could take her down. Azarenka? Sloan Stephens? We'll find out today about the latter. Probably no one if she's got her A game.

>1 stellarexplorer: - I think we can rule out any Federer run in the near future, this year his tennis has been all over the place. Losing Robredo means that he'll fall even further in the rankings and there is a real chance he'll fall outside the top 10 shortly if his form doesn't improve. I know he said he'd play on to Rio 2016 but he now has to accept that he will never win the singles title in the Olympics and think about calling it a day. Of course, knowing when to call it a day is an issue for most sports people, very few go out at the top, continuing in the belief that they can pull it all together for one last hurrah.
Then again, I may be completely wrong and he does have one last big win in him.
(Was surprised to learn that Nadal and Federer have never played in the US Open).

Wasn't surprised to see Sloan Stephens brushed aside. There is a lot of talk about her just her but nothing to back it up - she hasn't made a tour final yet, nevermind actually win one. She does have potential but then so do many players. At present she's in the wait-and-see category.

It does look Nadal making the final from one side and probably playing Djokovic in the final with Berdych the dark horse. (I expect him to beat Murray and reach the SF at least).

Unless Williams implodes can't see her losing (but I think we all thought that at Wimbledon).

It is sad to see a great champion fading. I can't imagine Federer will become Lleyton Hewitt and continue to play as he falls out of contention for Majors. But I don't sense he yet believes he can't get back to contention.

So much for my Berdych prediction. On form it looks like a Nadal-Djokovic.

Re Federer. There was an article on the BBC yesterday that pointed out that he has only won 1 GS in the since 2010 so the decline was already there. (And arguably if Murray was mentally stronger he wouldn't have won that one). It did seem strange to realise that he had won so little recently, that his peak is now over 4 years ago.

A sports career does tend to be an arc - young and promising followed by mature success and ended in ageing decline. What is interesting that often they become more loved in the last stage because the very act of losing makes them more identifiable to the spectators.

On that note I can't believe that Hewitt managed to lose from 5-2 up in the 5th set.

Watching Federer lose so badly to Robredo was sad. Only GS since 2010..... sorta hard to realize but he's had a great career.

It was a minor blip in the scheme of things, but I really enjoyed the Wozniacki - Georgi match and was sorry to see Giorgi lose to fellow Italian Vinci next round.

I felt bad for Suarez Navarro. Double bagel.

I'd like to see Murray or Ferrer win, but am afraid it's going to be either Nadal or Djokovic. And the juggernaut that is Serena will be hard to stop.

To put it another way, we relate to the humanness of the failing athlete, to his mortality which is also ours. He is no longer superhuman and different from ordinary morals, and we root for him to wage one last fight against the inevitable. We also can admit compassion into our array of feelings, in place of only awe, marvel and the joy of watching him compete.

And Serena, born assassin, has a clear path to victory. I never thought she'd arrive at the threshold of the all-time records for Major singles tiles. And yet after this one she'll be only one back of Evert and Navratolva.

The men: Nadal, Djoke, Murray. And didn't Wawrinka look awfully competitive out there?!

>6 stellarexplorer: - there are three ways to look at Serena - one, she hasn't won as many as she should have due to lack of motivation; or two, she is now so dominant and filling her boots because the standard of player is so low; or three, a combination of both. As always it is probably the latter but there is a lack of quality at the moment with no real challenger to her. (Take her away and anyone can win, a la Wimbledon).
Navratilova and Evert had to beat each other to win their titles, without the other either of them could have won 30 but they probably wouldn't have been such good players. Also, Grand Slams at one point weren't so important so players didn't turn up which now seems amazing - Evert didn't play the French Open for 3 years in the mid-1970s despite a clay record which makes Nadal look like an underachiever (she won 125 straight matches between 1973 and 1979) - and she missed the Australian Open for 5 years when world number 1.

There is a fourth possibility: that regardless of the strength of the competition, Serena is one of the all- time great players. She may have won more had she played more, had she been injured less. Surely Venus (and Henin) snatched a few titles from her.

There are knowledgeable tennis commentators who see her as the Greatest of All Time. I don't much like her attitude and bearing, but she's at least moving into the conversation.

Cf. https://www.byliner.com/l-jon-wertheim/stories/serena-supreme

>8 stellarexplorer: - the thing that goes against her is the quality of player. Great champions tend to be judged by against other great champions and the one time she had a real competitor (Henin) Serena came out second. I don't go with the injury excuse, there were times her injuries had more to do with he state of mind than the state of her body. (I'll be surprised if she doesn't end with 20+ though - the one thing that could have tipped things in her favour is winning a calendar GS).
I don't accept the argument that in the article that she would have crushed all the other greats - if Navratilova had a modern racquet at her peak her serve would have probably be even dominant than Serena's. It's easy to say that modern players are better but it the technology that makes them look better, allowing them to hit the ball significantly harder and with the much much larger heads increase the sweet spot dramatically.
(Talking about injuries curtailing careers, wouldn't Maureen Connolly have been the greatest - played 11 GS, won 9 - only lost the first two when she was 15/6 - but then she planned to go professional after she won back-to-back GSs).
(It is the same argument that goes against Federer - that regardless of the number of GS titles he comes out second best against Nadal).
Of couse, there is no answer to the question 'who is the greatest?', only endless debates.

Ps...I can't believe Gasquet won a 5 set match when it mattered.

Pps - sports people complain about stress! They should try to arrange replacement windows!

I think the big argument against Serena as GoAT is the fact that the women's game is no longer about the strategy and skill it used to be. Several players on the women's tour (Caro, Ivanovic come to mind) tend to play the defensive, baseline game. They keep smacking it back until their opponent screws up. The mixture of shots isn't really there. Giorgi got Caro into such a predicament because she did mix things up and force her to be more aggressive.

Serena is a power player. She slams her opponents off the court with her strength. I bet she could match almost any man's game player for power serve alone. To beat her, as Vika has done twice this year, you have to make her power a liability.

To me, If the final is Serena vs Vika, I'm thinking Vika has a shot. If anyone else is against Serena, yeah, they'll be powered off the court.

Of course it is impossible to compare athletes of different eras in any sport. Makes for heated conversation over a beer or on sports radio though. I suppose the one point of agreement is going to be that Serena is the best of her era.

The champions elect did become become the real champions. Now I suppose the question is all about records and the GOAT. There has been a lot of talk about Serena becoming the GOAT but very little surrounding Nadal. At Wimbledon Nadal looked in trouble with his knees again but since then he has been unstoppable and last night's win was his 13th title, only 4 behind Federer and still only 27. It is possible that he can catch Federer, a lot seems to depend on his knees and whether Djokovic & Murray can rise to the challenge. I know people keep saying that 8 of them are French titles but no-one says 7 of Federer's were Wimbledon and three of the court surfaces suit his game.
Even if Nadal does reach 17 or 18 is he the GOAT? In some ways he has to rated above Federer due to the Olympics, more Masters titles and head-to-head but then Federer will still remain the greater champion at Wimbledon, the US and Australian.

On the other hand, this man be the GOAT.

Parts of the men's final were absolutely stunning to watch - brilliant tennis from both men. Nadal kept slogging and Djokovic seemed surprised by it. Giving them the extra day paid off in my opinion.

I think Nadal has been making his case for GOAT (with his racquet that is) for some time. Not a weak case, as Jargoneer details.

I remember with amusement (for its absurdity) comments by Andre Agassi a few years ago, paraphrasing: I'm just saying that if Roger and Rafa are having dinner, and Roger stands up and proclaims "I'm the greatest of all time!", Rafa has to say "The greatest of all time? You're not even better than me!"