2017 U. S. Open Championships...ATP 2000...New York, New York, U. S. A.

[don_budge]

Could it be that his back was never 100%? I mean it was good enough to fake his way through easy opponents. But he simply could not move the right way. There is also the knee that is not the same one he had before. He is also older and recovery is not the same. If we think about age the way we would think about disease then it makes perfect sense. We can have a sudden miraculous recovery but it won't last forever. Fed will have to rest and prepare more and more as he gets older. He simply cannot play at a high level without a break. There is a reason he skipped the clay season. He can still play but to play at the highest level he needs more time to train and recover.

I expect that in a year or two he will gear his whole season around Wimbledon which he may win one more time.

Then eventually he will fade into the sunset. It is inevitable.

His play early this year was like a patient who has a sudden reprieve from a disease and is suddenly lucid.

Fed is on a rest/recovery cycle. He needed more rest and recovery before playing the US open.

It's as simple as that.

I had one other thought with Fed. Could it be that he has a form of PTSD at the US open?

I mean think about how many matches he has had where he has lost unexpectedly. The biggest one being Joker's casual winner to take the match.

Then loss after loss at different points of the tournament. Berdych at night in the quarters. Cilic in the semis. Joker again in the final.

All those memories sit around and just get magnified over time.

He is stil upset about having lost that final.

The negativity becomes cumulative.

And then he didn't have the crowd helping him out.

It just added to the negative mindset that has built up over time.

Delpo just brought all this ugliness back.

Remember the way he barked at the Umpire in the 2009 final.

All of this is inside Fed but most of the time he manages to hide it well.

No one has that much success without an edge...

Nothing is quite as simple as that.

It may have been a combination of these things. Of course it was. But there was something about some of the play that was a bit surreal to me. As in...you cannot be serious. Number one...he served and volleyed on a second serve to lose the first set. That struck me as very strange. Number two...the tie-break was vintage Federer. He was in command the whole way until he handed it to Del Potro. The comments were bizarre. Trust me...I know what I see. What you are saying is what everyone will say. I saw something beneath the obvious. You must see the signs and know their meaning.

He wasn't sitting down between games. That flubbed volley at the end of the match is just beyond my imagination. He makes that shot 999,999 times out of a million. The more you try to uphold the "conventional wisdom" the more I see a flaw in that. The other stuff about the cumulative is irrelevant. That isn't how Federer rolls.

The final in Montreal was very strange. He absolutely manhandled both Feliciano Lopez and Phiipp Kohlschreiber. He was as sharp as a tack. I never saw so much as a grimace on his face. I never saw so much as a grimace on his face at the open. I watch very closely...nothing escapes me. There was something that doesn't meet the eye going on in New York. Those comments almost incriminate him.

I understand what you are saying. Thanks for your comments.

[stotty]

The bookies have Rafa down as the heavy favourite to win the final, understandably. He's had a good run and all the opposition simply peeled away for one reason or another. It will be a big ask for Anderson to win in a maiden final, but you never know, nothing is certain in this game or any other game for that matter.

With Djokovic sidelined, Nadal could run rampant for a while.

[don_budge]

Watching the women's final. This is as dumbed down as it can possibly get. These women are getting equal prize money? What a joke...but it is no laughing matter. The implications are staggering. Neither of these two players could beat a top 10,000 player on the men's side. That side isn't so deep either. Unseeded Sloane Stephens against the number 15 seeded what is her name...Madison Keyes? hockeyscout might have something going on here if he gets the young on headed in the right direction.

[klacr]

Women's final was a nice media push for American tennis, but nothing was pleasant about this match. Lots of offense that led to errors and lots of defense that led to more offensive errors. 6-3,6-0, 61 minutes. Good night.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[bottle]

Watching the women's final. This is as dumbed down as it can possibly get. These women are getting equal prize money? What a joke...but it is no laughing matter. The implications are staggering. Neither of these two players could beat a top 10,000 player on the men's side. That side isn't so deep either. Unseeded Sloane Stephens against the number 15 seeded what is her name...Madison Keyes? hockeyscout might have something going on here if he gets the young on headed in the right direction.

That guy should restrain himself whenever it comes to women's tennis, lest people think that A. he doesn't like women and B. he doesn't like Afro-Americans. And TennisPlayer might well ask why it doesn't have women in its discussion board the way it once did and how it could increase the number of women on its subscription roll.

The story of Sloane Stephens' recovery from surgery (and the extent of that recovery) is more intriguing than whether some expat in Sweden is still licking his wounds from Billie Jean's victory over Bobby Riggs many decades ago. So yes, something is as dumbed down as it can possibly get but not what the expat thinks.

I won't return here for several days to avoid a likely squawk and altercation usually in the form of foul obscenity from more than one person and worthy of the president himself. Let's just hope the expat, muttering under his breath that no one is going to push him around or mess with him since he is a tough guy from Detroit, doesn't give a case of rabies to his dog Puntzie.

[gzhpcu]

Rafa won easily, as expected. Kevin's game is too limited. His serve is fast, but no variation. Rafa was receiving serve from practically the linesman's lap. Why didn't Anderson take advantage of it and hit, slow short angled slice serves. Wait - don't tell me: he can't....

[stotty]

Rafa won easily, as expected. Kevin's game is too limited. His serve is fast, but no variation. Rafa was receiving serve from practically the linesman's lap. Why didn't Anderson take advantage of it and hit, slow short angled slice serves. Wait - don't tell me: he can't....

Rafa stood that far back to return in all seven rounds. I said to my son, Sampras would have a field day with Rafa standing so far back. The options for winning points would be huge.

I don't know how Rafa gets away with that. I feel I could ace him myself from the deuce side. He is, however, very quick to assume a more normal position after the return, but even so, and good server or serve and volleyer would be able to exploit the situation you would think.

I went to bed after the second set...the writing being on the wall.

[gzhpcu]

Couldn't Anderson hit a slow, short sidespin serve? To keeo Rafa guessing...

[arturohernandez]

Rafa stood that far back to return in all seven rounds. I said to my son, Sampras would have a field day with Rafa standing so far back. The options for winning points would be huge.

I don't know how Rafa gets away with that. I feel I could ace him myself from the deuce side. He is, however, very quick to assume a more normal position after the return, but even so, and good server or serve and volleyer would be able to exploit the situation you would think.

I went to bed after the second set...the writing being on the wall.

I was thinking the same thing. Sampras would have feasted on that all day. Not just Sampras. Any winner of Wimbledon in the 90's (besides Agassi) would have just attacked the net all the time. Nadal should savor this victory. I just don't see it happening again.

In fact, I feel it is an end of an era. I think both Nadal and Federer will start to fade slowly again. Djokovic won't regain the fire. He will be like DelPotro, a shadow of his former self. Murray won't be able to get back either.

And then Zverev and Shapalov will be waiting in the wings. Shapalov has the all court game to beat anyone.

It is all very circular. Both Fed and Nadal win two slams each. Each is given a relatively easy draw in one of their slams.

It's all too perfect as if it was somehow orchestrated this way.

Given where we were a year ago, I am really wondering where we will be a year from now.

[stotty]

I was thinking the same thing. Sampras would have feasted on that all day. Not just Sampras. Any winner of Wimbledon in the 90's (besides Agassi) would have just attacked the net all the time. Nadal should savor this victory. I just don't see it happening again.

In fact, I feel it is an end of an era. I think both Nadal and Federer will start to fade slowly again. Djokovic won't regain the fire. He will be like DelPotro, a shadow of his former self. Murray won't be able to get back either.

And then Zverev and Shapalov will be waiting in the wings. Shapalov has the all court game to beat anyone.

It is all very circular. Both Fed and Nadal win two slams each. Each is given a relatively easy draw in one of their slams.

It's all too perfect as if it was somehow orchestrated this way.

Given where we were a year ago, I am really wondering where we will be a year from now.

Thanks for your comments.

McEnroe said Rafa stands so back far because it's his chosen style of play and he can. He can, says McEnroe, because there is no one around who can do anything about it, and if anyone did come along, Rafa would just shift position, because he can shift position if he wants to....if he has to. Basically Rafa is playing on his own terms.

Borg would have loved to have stood that far back against McEnroe but never did because he knew he couldn't. Watch any of their matches and Borg will be contacting his returns around the baseline or just outside it. Had Borg stood were Rafa does he would have been slitting his own throat. I know, I know, I know tennis was different back then...but not so different that Rafa's bizarre position couldn't be exploited.

No one on the forum could convince me that Rafa could continue to stand so far back against a good serve volleyer who could angle his serves. I have spoken to no one yet who doesn't think Rafa's strategy for returning on a hardcourt isn't odd. "It just looks all wrong" is what most people say.

[don_budge]

Couldn't Anderson hit a slow, short sidespin serve? To keeo Rafa guessing...

This is the beginning of a very long discussion. But for the record I didn't watch a single point of this bullshit. Rafael Nadal and Kevin Anderson. What nonsense.

Kevin Anderson is another ATP player playing the junior game. Here's a guy who is what...7 feet tall? He is standard fare with a two hand backhand, strong gripped forehand and what about his serve?

Doesn't have the tactical acumen to pull Nadal off of the court with deadly slice serves up the line...followed by hammering balls up the tee? It's moronic. But that is modern tennis. In a nut shell.

Only Roger Federer has the technique and the tactical acumen to pull off the serve and volley play with any effectiveness. Even he has lost his edge on this part of the game and has only been able to partially resurrect this tactic. The madness has come to full light and this was a spectacle beyond the wildest imagination of the game only seventeen years ago.

Complete and utter nonsense. I couldn't wait to say it and I didn't have to see the match to know it.

[gzhpcu]

Anderson's serve was shown not to be so great: just mindless bashing as hard as possible. No variation, no deception... having gotten to the final is no great compliment for the state of today's tennis...

[stotty]

Twice in the tournament Rafa asked the linesman if he could move out of the way so he could stand further back still.

[gzhpcu]

Rafa is a great fighter. He has 16 Slam titles versus Roger's 19. He will probably end up with more than Roger.

[arturohernandez]

Rafa is a great fighter. He has 16 Slam titles versus Roger's 19. He will probably end up with more than Roger.

I have two thoughts:

1) Everyone keeps thinking Rafa will breakdown and disappear and he keeps proving everyone wrong; He won two slams this year.

2) Rafa is not immune to the drop in play at age 30. His best performance was by far on clay. He cannot win on grass anymore and hardcourt tennis will get even worse. This is his best year and he was losing to people that would not touch him on clay.

I don't think he can win two more slams again. The US open was an anomaly. A gift from the heavens. He might be able to win one more French but I really think his style will not lend itself to winning any more slams outside of clay.

But he could prove me wrong. Agassi said Nadal was writing checks but his body keeps on cashing them in.

I don't anyone expected him to be this successful.

It will be many years before we see someone with this kind of motivation.

Fed is the only one who can match him now and he is getting to the point where I think his only chance will be wimbledon.

If I were him, I would take as much time off until the hunger and motivation came back.