Novak Djokovic Is Out, And The Field At The US Open Has Never Been More… Open
Medvedev is my pick. Berrettini might be the toughest opponent for the Russian, but only if he squeezes past Rublev first. What needs to happen so that history doesn’t put an asterisk next to the winner’s name?
There was really just one man who could legitimately be called the favourite to win the 2020 US Open’s title, at least until last night, when Novak Djokovic was ousted by none other than himself, after hitting a pinpoint forehand that will be remembered as the unluckiest of his career. The default was inevitable – any other decision would have frankly been unacceptable. Novak tried to talk himself out of it, as humanly understandable, but finally accepted the ruling.
There might be some debate over the adequacy of the rule in all situations, as some instances of reckless behaviour are not as deserving of a punishment as hard as an immediate ban – the Italian Maria Vittoria Viviani, for example, was ridiculously banned at the 2017 Australian Open for hitting a harmless ball in the ground that ended up lightly striking a ballboy. However, it would have been just plain wrong not to apply the rule in this context, as the lineswoman was hit in the throat and fell to the ground in shock, while also struggling to breathe. An awful precedent would have been set, proving that some players are above the law.
It must be said, additionally, that Djokovic is something of a repeat offender. It can happen, over 1,107 matches as a professional player, to lose one’s temper by smashing a racquet or by hitting a ball a little too aggressively, but this isn’t the first time that Nole crosses the line. He almost got disqualified at the 2016 French Open, when he threw his racquet on the ground and would have hit a linesman if the guy hadn’t shown Jedi-like reactions by ducking in time:
Apparently the original Djokovic racket toss tweet video was deleted, but some bootlegging recovered it. #RG16pic.twitter.com/JVirYWICrw
Furthermore, at the 2016 ATP Finals at the O2 Arena, a similar outburst had provoked a question from a pretty in-your-face colleague, and the Serbian had almost lost control:
Sure, it would have been just fine if last night’s trajectory had been even slightly more to the right or the left, or even if the lineswoman had seen it coming and managed to dodge it. He would have gotten a warning for ball abuse (a punishment he could have received a few minutes earlier for a similar gesture, arguably even angrier), maybe a post-match fine, but he could have kept on playing that set in which he had squandered three consecutive set points at 5-4. He was very unlucky, even though Federer and Nadal fans will say that he deserved it. But history isn’t made of what ifs.
I wasn’t surprised when Novak didn’t show up for his press conference. What was he supposed to say just a few minutes after what happened? It might have been the 2016 Finals all over again, although I have to say that, so far, my British colleagues from the tabloidS haven’t been particularly venomous during our Zoom Q&A’s.
However, Nole apologized on Instagram as soon as he got back to the pricey house he had rented in Long Island, as he should have. During a regular press conference, he would have been bombarded with too many questions he wouldn’t have had much of an answer to.
Our readers reacted in many ways, often ironically, quoting Nick Kyrgios’s inevitable tweet in response to the fiasco and digging for precedents, almost always resulting in the player getting disqualified, except for last week’s episode involving once-Brit Aljaz Bedene during the Western & Southern Open. The Slovenian hit a cameraman, one of the few people in the house, with a ball that had lost power after hitting the backwall first, but hadn’t been defaulted, given the aforementioned mitigating circumstances. Perhaps someone might argue that he should have been disqualified as well.
But enough with Djokovic, although it must be highlighted that he also fell quite badly on his shoulder last night, something that might jeopardise his presence in Rome even more than in Paris. What we have now is a US Open whose field is a lot more open now.
For starters, at the end of the 470th Major (starting with the 1877 Championships) we will finally get a new winner, the 150th in history. In addition, it will also be the first Slam title going to a player born in the 1990s, unless Auger-Aliassime wins it, and in that case we would step even further into a new era, since the Canadian was born on August 8, 2000.
Djokovic, 33, was the oldest player still in the tournament, followed by the co-president of his new players’ union, the PTPA, i.e. Vasek Pospisil, who turned 30 in June, and by his vanquisher, Pablo Carreno Busta, born in 1991. Everybody else is much younger, with even a pair of Next Gen studs.
Now that the world N.1 is out, many will be gunning for the trophy. Those who have preeminence rights are the ones right behind him – 2nd seed Dominic Thiem, 3rd seed Daniil Medvedev, 5th seed Sascha Zverev, and 6th seed Matteo Berrettini. The top half of the draw is wide open, since the spot that would have belonged to Djokovic is now Carreno’s, someone who would hardly be considered a potential winner of the event, even though he was playing a solid match last night, being on the verge of winning the opening set.
Resumé-wise, the obvious contender for a spot in Sunday’s final is Alexander Zverev. After a few years of wayward (and underwhelming) performances in the Slams, the German is the only player in the top half who has proven able to win big, banking three Masters 1000 titles and the 2018 ATP Finals.
The fourth round of the bottom half of the draw still needs to be played, and is scheduled for today, featuring serious contenders such as Medvedev and Thiem plus an anticipated showdown between Berrettini and Rublev. In an upcoming video preview with friend and colleague Steve Flink, we convened that last year’s finalist, Daniil Medvedev, is the leading candidate to claim that title he lost in 2019, just barely, to Rafa Nadal.
The Russian is in front of Thiem in the pecking order. The Dominator will probably have his hands full with Auger-Aliassime, while I believe that Medvedev will dismiss Tiafoe pretty easily. After the match-up with the American, he would probably risk losing a little more against a great serving performance by Berrettini than against his fellow countryman Rublev, whom he has known since the age of 11 and whom he’s beaten twice as a pro without dropping a set nor relinquishing control of the match, although duels between friends can be tricky.
Berrettini, as mentioned, can be more dangerous for him, but the Italian needs to beat Rublev first, and that’s easier said than done. The younger Russian poses a much greater threat to him than any of the opponents he’s faced so far, as someone who returns better and who can dictate with both groundstrokes. Rublev is stronger on the forehand side, but it’s on the other diagonal trajectory that he will try to suffocate the Roman, whose inside-out TNT-fueled forehand will need to be particularly on form to fetch him the same plethora of quick points it did against inferior opponents like Soeda, Humbert, and Ruud.
Leaning into my nationalist bias, I have reason to believe that Rublev will give Berrettini a run for his money, even though the Italian has beaten him three out of five times (three out of four as professionals, since the first win of the Russian happened at Boys’ Wimbledon), in Gstaad, in Vienna, and here at Flushing Meadows a year ago. Berrettini has grown a lot as a player, but the same can be said about his ginger foe.
If Medvedev beats the winner of the Berrettini-Rublev match, I believe he is a surefire finalist, because I don’t see anybody capable of beating him in the semis out of the Labor Day quartet of Pospisil, De Minaur, Auger-Aliassime, and Thiem.
One final question, and an important one: given the nature of Nole’s elimination (and the concomitant absence, the first of the century, of Federer and Nadal), will the winner of the 2020 US Open get an asterisk next to his title? This theory had only been ventilated for the women’s tournament up until now, since six Top Tenners were missing and Serena Williams didn’t look at her best, and perhaps still doesn’t.
I’ve said this to Steve Flink as well, but my thought on the matter is: the asterisk will be permanent if and only if the winner should remain a one-Slam wonder, i.e. if he won’t be able to rack up a few more titles in the next few years. If he will win some, then there won’t be any historical justification for keeping the asterisk in place. In the end, how many people do still remember the year when John McEnroe got disqualified, and not just where it happened?
Alexander Zverev - Madrid 2024 (photo X @MutuaMadridOpen)
In the last match of the day the No. 5 in the world comfortably seals a 64 75 win and reaches the round of 16 in the Mutua Madrid Open for his seventh time
The Madrid nocturne was poised for entertaining drama when Alexander Zverev and Denis Shapovalov stepped on court at 11 pm. The German looking to emulate his past glorious runs in Madrid, where his name is engraved in the history book as a two-time winner.
And Shapovalov, in his strenuous attempt to retrieve his pre-injury tennis and ranking standards. Let’s not forget he was a Wimbledon semi-finalist in 2021 and a top 10. And let’s not forget aesthetics, the 25-year-old being one of those players endowed with a unique, inimitably stylish leftie game.
Yet the match fell somewhat short of expectations. Too many unforced errors oozing from the Canadian, who was perpetually struggling to hold serve and just as perpetually was unable to pose a threat to Zverev’s, but for a little help in the final stages.
Yes, there were applause-ripping points, plenty enough for editing pleasing highlights, but the match was a lop-sided one, far more than is told by the score.
Shapovalov was already struggling to hold serve in the third game, when he faced two break points.
In game 5 two double faults resulted in two further break points. However, Shapovalov, mixing up power and delicacy, alias first services and dropshots. managed to emerge from trouble.
To sum up, the first 6 games had gone with serve, though Zverev had denied access, whereas Shapovalov had had to save four break points.
Zverev earned three break points in the seventh, after scything an extraordinary backhand volley on the stretch. And this time Shapovalov did not succeed in bouncing back.
A higher first serve percentage – 72%, including 7 aces – and more effective returning granted Zverev the first set. As well as a predominance in the scarce longer rallies.
Often does the wind change direction at the start of a second set, but Shapovalov insisted on overly indulging in dropshots, resulting in predictability, and lost his service in the first game.
When he faced a break point in the fifth game, after leading 40 15, it seemed as if he was about to throw in the towel. Instead he threw in a backhand passing shot, nimbly flicked with his wrist, and held on.
Back on serve – just a few minutes later, so rapidly did Zverev’s service games whizz past – he saved 5 more break points with flashes of talent, forays to the net, winning forehands from all positions.
The match seemed to be edging towards the closing credits, when Zverev was serving for the match at 54. But never write off panache in tennis. After an overall erratic performance, Shapovalov netted a forehand passing shot, which would have earned him a break point and an assumedly last chance. In turn Zverev netted a match point, suddenly tightened up and ended up dropping his serve, when Shapovalov won a humanly inexplicable rollercoaster point ultimately scooping up a ball from under the net and steering it past his opponent.
Could the plot take a different twist?
Shapovalov, who had seemed fired up after grabbing the break, abruptly deflated and disappointed expectations by losing his service to love.
Serving a second time for the match, Zverev faltered once more and faced his second break point in the match, which would have meant tie break and a leap into the unknown.
His most formidable weapon, his serve, picked up again and just in time. Three thundering first serves ushered him into the round of 16, where he will be facing Francisco Cerundolo, a resilient winner of Tommy Paul in three sets.
Andrey Rublev says two decisions made by the umpire during his third round match at the Madrid Open were ‘wrong’ with the points going against him.
The world No.8 clashed with official Adel Nour during his 7-6(10), 6-3, win over Alejandro Davidovich Fokina. It began seven games into the match when a shot from the Spaniard was called out which prompted him to immediately challenge. Then after some confusion, the umpire stated that the shot was in but decided to award the point to Fokina instead of replaying it. A decision that prompted an angry response from Rublev who demanded a replay but officials were unable to do so.
In the second set, a similar situation occurred when a Rublev return was initially called out before the umpire ruled it in. However, the official decided to issue a replay instead of giving the Russian the point.
“I mean I felt it was wrong because in the first set was exactly the same situation and I told the referee, I agree that yes I couldn’t make it, I hit it out,” The Express quoted Rublev as saying afterwards. “But the referee called out earlier than I hit [it]. And then second set, the same situation but the referee called it also later than Alejandro hit and the referee told me no, but he was in the position that he could make it. And I say yes but he was trying to make it and he missed it and then it was out.” “Exactly the same two situations and both of them in my situation, he gave the point to Alejandro and in Alejandro’s situation, we replayed the point.”
Controversy aside, Rublev has now won back-to-back matches in the Tour for the first time since February when he was disqualified from the Dubai Tennis Championships for unsportsmanlike conduct. After that incident, he launched a successful appeal to the ATP who ruled the penalty as ‘disproportionate’ and returned his rankings points and prize money. However, a fine of nearly $30,000 was upheld.
Rublev currently has a win-loss record of 17-8 so far this season. In Madrid, he will play Tallon Griekspoor in the fourth round.
Juan Martin Del Potro has spoken about the future of tennis as well as Rafael Nadal’s pending retirement.
The Argentinian retired in 2022 when he played his last match against Federico Delbonis in Buenos Aires with Del Potro struggling with a knee injury during his last tournaments.
Del Potro spoke about competing against ‘the big four,’ expectations while playing on the tour and having no regrets over his last match, “Having won a Grand Slam in the best of the big three has special value,” Del Potro told Punto De Break.
“Now that speaks of the big three but between us we always talked about the fantastic four because Andy Murray has always been the closes to the best in all of history. Any victory against them was of impressive value.
“Having won a Grand Slam may sound little, but it’s not. Playing quarters and semis against the best gives me the peace of mind that, despite not having achieved big tournaments, I always fought them and that’s enough for me.”
Having experienced big success in the sport, Del Potro knows how tough it is physically to stay at the top.
Also the Argentinian knows how hard it is to retire on your own terms and that’s a dilemma that Rafael Nadal faces as the Spaniard is set to end his illustrious career this season.
Del Potro discussed Nadal’s impending retirement as well as some of the memories he had on the court against the Spaniard, “I think we have to start assimilating that a tennis stage is going to end. Roger is no longer there, but his legacy was very marked forever. And now Nadal is giving himself the pleasure of retiring in his own way and under his own conditions,” Del Potro stated.
“And it’s something that unfortunately I couldn’t do for my health. Rafa’s thing is impressive. Seeing him play and seeing that passion for competing and that energy he has is something unique and I don’t know if there will be something similar in the coming years.
“I hope I’ll cross it now and say hello and I’ll keep watching it on TV. I’m not watching much tennis, but if Rafa or Novak plays, of course I look at it.
“Rio’s match was emotionally very strong and spectacular, as an Argentine in Brazil and against Rafa. Another game I remember was the semifinals of the 2009 Us Open, but there is one that I lost against Nadal who was at Wimbledon 2018. I lost that game, but at the end we gave each other a hug. It was super emotional and when I see images of that game and that moment I don’t care about having lost because that moment is already winning.
“The result doesn’t matter, but that hug, the emotion, the fans. It was an unforgettable day and those were the great memories I have with Rafa.”
Finally Del Potro reflected on the future of tennis with Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner expected to have a fierce rivalry at the top of the game.
The former US Open champion compared it to rivalries of the past and is excited for what they can bring to tennis, “I love seeing Alcaraz because he has a freshness and a naturalness to walk on the track that looks like a 30-year-old guy who has been on the circuit for 10 and is super young,” Del Potro explained.
“It’s going to be very good for tennis, that face to face against Sinner. He is going to build a rivalry that tennis constantly had. First it was Agassi-Sampras, then Roger-Rafa, then Novak. And now it will be the two of them.”
ATP3 days ago
Hot Topics2 days ago
Latest news2 days ago
Focus3 days ago
Hot Topics2 days ago
Focus2 days ago
Latest news1 day ago