Will someone break through at the 2017 US Open?

[Sweet Jesus]

So Wawrinka will miss, Djokovic will miss, and Murray is apparently 50-50. If Murray does manage to play, it's hard to imagine he'll be anywhere near 100 per cent.

Depending on whether Murray makes it, it may be that Federer, Nadal, Cilic and Del Potro are the only Grand Slam champions - and US Open champions, at that - in the draw.

With all that in mind, there does seem to be a rare opportunity for a younger player to break through and win their first major title.

History shows that the US Open has been particularly rewarding for first-time winners. You can go all the way back to Sampras in 1990 but Rafter, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Del Potro, Murray and Cilic also broke through in New York.

I think that is partly down to the US Open coming at the end of the season, when some of the older, more established players have run out of gas or are carrying injuries. It creates a window of opportunity for younger guys.

So, with that in mind, is it time for Raonic or Zverev or someone else to shine?

 

[Big Tezza]

I'd be surprised if the winner comes from outside Federer, Nadal or Cilic, but Zverev certainly has it in him to make a deep run. He's shown he can match it with the big guns in best of 3 (Rome and Washington), now he just has to put it together at Grand Slam level. As it stands, his recent 4R at Wimbledon is his best slam result to date.

I can't see any of the other younger guys being in a position to potentially win it. Thiem hasn't shown anywhere near the sort of level on hardcourts that he regularly produces on clay, Raonic and Dimitrov have really been hit or miss all year and don't appear to be carrying any sort of decent form into the NA hardcourt season, and I just can't see Nishikori ever managing to play seven high quality best of 5 matches in a row without injuring himself, not to mention that his serve is just too attackable for the top guys.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The City Boyz - maybe it's time to shine for one of the younger players?

 

[BobbyMorri]

haha. i knew where this thread was going to end up.

I don't think so. Zverev is still too young to play over 5 sets. Same goes to Nick, but for different reasons.

i can't see Fed not winning unless someone pulls a complete rabbit out of the hat and showcases something that they haven't shown all year. Milos, Kei, Jo Willy and Grigor(outside AO) have shown me nothing all year to say they are a threat.

The US Open is normally Nadal's worst for the reasons u stated in your post(fatigue). still, i would rate him as the 2nd fav.

For those who have already won, Del Porto needs that rabbit as well. but, unlike those I mentioned eariler, he has shown that he can find that rabbit. Cilic will have demons if he faces Fed. Murray is a cripple and should think about doing a Fed.

 

[Gigantic]

I'd love for Nishikori to take that next step up but it doesn't look even remotely likely.

Of all the guys who have yet to win a slam, Zverev is probably the most likely.

 

[JackNah_8]

Zverev but as mentioned by bobbi, he will struggle to play five sets


Maybe Cilic will bounce back and win a second US Open.

Potential winners :Federer, Nadal, Murray or random pick Tsonga?

 

[Hamingja]

The last 9 years there have been 7 different winners so it is the slam that hasn't been completely dominated by the big 4.

That said if I had to pick a winner now it would be Nadal.

Zverev is playing well but you couldn't name too many other threats to break through on current form.

 

[JackNah_8]

Zverev earned the best win of his career when he defeated then No. 2 in the Emirates ATP Rankings, Novak Djokovic, to land his biggest title at the ATP World Tour Masters 1000 clay-court event in Rome. The man also dubbed as the “next big thing”, Dominic Thiem, went on to defeat Djokovic en route to the semi-finals at Roland Garros.

Zverev said the pair was working hard to close the gap on the Big Four. A major breakthrough for either player could well be on the horizon. “We're not too far away,” Zverev said. “I think both of us have shown that. We've won big tournaments this year.

“I've had and Dominic has had great matches in five sets against those kind of guys. He beat Novak in Paris. I lost to Nadal in five sets in Australia. That shows we're not far away.

“There's little things. In important moments maybe they do stuff better. Maybe they're experienced, as well. They've been on tour, you know, Rafa 12 years, Roger, whatever, 16, 17 years. That has an influence on it, as well.”

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/zverev-montreal-preview-2017


Zverev and Thiem are probably a 1-2 away from winning a GS.

I was going to suggest Milos but he hasnt played that well this year.

 

[Hamingja]

18 months ago you would call me crazy, and you would probably still laugh, but outside of Nadal and Federer I'd give Querrey as good a shot as anyone else at 100-1. Not exactly the young player the OP is after though.

 

[JackNah_8]

18 months ago you would call me crazy, and you would probably still laugh, but outside of Nadal and Federer I'd give Querrey as good a shot as anyone else at 100-1. Not exactly the young player the OP is after though.

Haha... actually I thought of Sam Q beforehand, after seeing he beat Tsonga today . I wouldn't be surprised if Sam does well at the US Open

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Big chance for Zverev surely.

 

[JackNah_8]

After this week's performance, Zverev should be the first one of next generation to win a GS. Maybe the US Open?!

 

[Sweet Jesus]

After this week's performance, Zverev should be the first one of next generation to win a GS. Maybe the US Open?!

His emergence gives the lie to all the arguments made in defence of the under-performing middle-aged players.

In response to my criticism that guys in that bracket aged 22-27 had been weak as piss, the predictable, half-baked excuses came thick and fast.

"Oh, but the established players are just too good for anyone younger to win anything of note."

"Oh, but the game has changed and now players in their 30s have all the advantages."

Well, Zverev has just won consecutive masters titles aged 20 - proving those excuses listed above are complete bullshit. As I pointed out at the time.

It may well be the case that men's tennis skips a generation. Maybe we'll look back in a few years and conclude that there simply weren't any great players born between 1988 and 1996. Although it's probably still too early to judge the youngest of the guys in that bracket.

However, there's a precedent. There weren't many absolute top-liners born between 1972 and 1980. Admittedly, you've got the likes of Rafter, Safin, Kafelnikov and Kuerten. So they've probably still got the 1988-96 crew covered. Unless it all suddenly (belatedly) clicks for some of the guys aged 22-27 currently on tour.

 

[Pedantic]

I suppose the only knock on Zverev at the moment would be that his best GS result is making the round of 16. Whether he has the fitness, strength, consistency, etc to put it together over seven consecutive best of 5 set matches is the question.

 

[Alesana]

His emergence gives the lie to all the arguments made in defence of the under-performing middle-aged players.

In response to my criticism that guys in that bracket aged 22-27 had been weak as piss, the predictable, half-baked excuses came thick and fast.

"Oh, but the established players are just too good for anyone younger to win anything of note."

"Oh, but the game has changed and now players in their 30s have all the advantages."

Well, Zverev has just won consecutive masters titles aged 20 - proving those excuses listed above are complete bullshit. As I pointed out at the time.

It may well be the case that men's tennis skips a generation. Maybe we'll look back in a few years and conclude that there simply weren't any great players born between 1988 and 1996. Although it's probably still too early to judge the youngest of the guys in that bracket.

However, there's a precedent. There weren't many absolute top-liners born between 1972 and 1980. Admittedly, you've got the likes of Rafter, Safin, Kafelnikov and Kuerten. So they've probably still got the 1988-96 crew covered. Unless it all suddenly (belatedly) clicks for some of the guys aged 22-27 currently on tour.

You think he would've won Washington/Montreal if Djokovic, Murray, Cilic, Wawrinka etc. played? Zverev is very talented and deserves the titles but it's as good a time as you'll get to win a couple of titles all things considered.

 

[BobbyMorri]

You think he would've won Washington/Montreal if Djokovic, Murray, Cilic, Wawrinka etc. played? Zverev is very talented and deserves the titles but it's as good a time as you'll get to win a couple of titles all things considered.

the fact that he won instead of Milos, Kei etc is probably more the point.

Plus you are massiely underselling Zverev. This wasnt his first masters final, let alone win. He won in Rome on the clay v Novak. This was his 5th title of the year. He is now 3rd(or 4th) in the race, despite losing first round to Verdasco at the French.

If the men played BO3 sets at grand slam level, he would have beaten Nadal at the Aus, Milos at Wimbledon. He is almost there.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You think he would've won Washington/Montreal if Djokovic, Murray, Cilic, Wawrinka etc. played?.

Who can say?

He beat Federer, who is perhaps the form player on tour. And Nadal also played. So that's the two best-performed players this year.

Zverev also won in Rome, and all those players apart from Federer were there.

So take your pick.

Zverev is very talented and deserves the titles but it's as good a time as you'll get to win a couple of titles all things considered.

There's always an excuse.

If it's such a great time for someone to "get a couple of titles", why isn't it Raonic, Dmitrov or Nishikori breaking through, rather than a 20-year-old? Perhaps it's because they're not very good, like I've been saying?

Maybe tell us again how the game has changed and no one should expect to win anything until their late 20s.

The fact Zverev has just won two Masters titles flies in the face of this obviously flawed argument.

Or has the game changed again since then? Now it's the 20-year-olds who have all the advantages? I can't keep track.

I assume your rationale means that the current Cincinnati Masters doesn't count for much? No Federer, no Djokovic, no Murray, no Wawrinka. If one of those underachieving middle-aged players does manage to break through, you won't be returning to crow about it.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Suffice to say, at least one chancer will arrive in NYC in career-best form.

Unless David Ferrer wins in Cincinnati. And then we can just pretend the tournament didn't happen.

 

[pepsi]

It is starting to have the feel of being open to a first time slam finalist happening.

 

[JackNah_8]

I think Dimitrov can win the US Open . I would like to say Zverev but not sure if he is ready to win a GS and last 2 weeks.


Edit, forget about Dimitrov, already out of the tournament.

My pick, Cilic or Sam Querrey

 

[Broar]

Who can say?

He beat Federer, who is perhaps the form player on tour. And Nadal also played. So that's the two best-performed players this year.

Zverev also won in Rome, and all those players apart from Federer were there.

So take your pick.

There's always an excuse.

If it's such a great time for someone to "get a couple of titles", why isn't it Raonic, Dmitrov or Nishikori breaking through, rather than a 20-year-old? Perhaps it's because they're not very good, like I've been saying?

Maybe tell us again how the game has changed and no one should expect to win anything until their late 20s.

The fact Zverev has just won two Masters titles flies in the face of this obviously flawed argument.

Or has the game changed again since then? Now it's the 20-year-olds who have all the advantages? I can't keep track.

I assume your rationale means that the current Cincinnati Masters doesn't count for much? No Federer, no Djokovic, no Murray, no Wawrinka. If one of those underachieving middle-aged players does manage to break through, you won't be returning to crow about it.

Interesting Zverev stat that I saw on twitter he still hasn't beaten a top 50 in a Grand Slam yet.

 

[Brad Goodman]

Some professional commentators say Zverev isn't ready to do it over two weeks in best of five sets matches.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

This looks less likely than it did a week ago.

Is the final going to be Nadal/Federer v Cilic?

It would be a major surprise if not.

Cilic should waltz through. I can't recall one half of a grand slam draw being as weak as the bottom half at this US Open.

 

[JackNah_8]

This looks less likely than it did a week ago.

Is the final going to be Nadal/Federer v Cilic?

It would be a major surprise if not.

Or, Dimitrov?

Denis has the potential to make 4th rd or quarters

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Or, Dimitrov?

Denis has the potential to make 4th rd or quarters

Yeah, I guess the top half of the draw is more competitive.

Dimitrov, Del Potro or Thiem could find a way through. Even Berdych.

I have to say, I don't think I'll be following it too closely until midway through the second week. It's pretty uninspiring.