Just How Stoked Should We Be For The U.S. Open?

Stoked. Said it a 1001 times, but you know when you hear folks reminiscing about the 'good old days' of a sport and there's this melancholy that you missed it? Well, these are the good old days in men's tennis, and though Nadal is a big loss - tennis is unusual right now, everyone roots for favorites to be favorites, nobody *really* likes an underdog upset -- there's still a lot of drama. Federer, world #1 at 31, trying to get back to the final after a pair of semifinal heartbreakers to Djokovic; Djokovic eager to re-locate his unbeatable Djokovic-ness; Andy Murray, attempting win that major to join his thrilling Olympic medal. And I do think Serena's a great story his summer, as her play at Wimbledon and the Olympics was spectacular.

It's hard not to get excited for the bombastic spectacle that is the U.S. Open. I personally can't wait to hear "Empire State of Mind" played on loop. Can never get enough of that jam*.

There's no clear Player of the Year for either the men or women and that's what makes this year's US Open interesting. That's not entirely a rare situation for the women but we're pretty used to going into the USO knowing who's dominated the year for the guys (Hint: rhymes with Treaderer, Fladal, and Djokovic). This year Djokovic won the Australian Open, Nadal dominated clay, Federer won Wimbledon, and Murray won "the Fifth Slam" at the Olympics. Like, holy shit, we actually talk about Murray having a *real* chance here.

It's super weird.

*lies

Thomas Golianopoulos

Great point about rooting for the favorites. Lukas Rosol was thrilling as it was happening but was it worth missing out on a Nadal-Tsonga QF and a Nadal-Murray semifinal? I think Nadal’s absence is the biggest storyline. Filling out the men’s draw had become formal procedure — just move the Big Four into the semifinals. Who’ll join (presumably) Federer, Djokovic and Murray in the Final Four? I’d love to see either Del Potro or a fresh face like a Milos Raonic on Super Saturday or Super Sunday or whenever the rain stops.

Wait, you guys. I just read the John Jeremiah Sullivan piece. Which in the beginning with all the Richard/Compton stuff I was thinking "Oh god, this again." And then? The story is a knockout. It's so good. It doesn't do that terrible thing that tennis profilers love to do (3,000 words on describing a forehand).

Someone correct me here. But when was the last time we heard Serena/Venus/Oracene talk this expansively about themselves and the family? Cause right now I'm coming up with "never" or "a decade ago." The story is deeply sympathetic--and glides a little too quickly by the pulmonary embolism, which I'd like to hear way more about!--but wow. Serena on the foot fault/the "come on." The other sister! I love. Or am I getting carried away?

Cops serve up love game in coffee cup slay case... nydailynews.com

Also, the Open hasn't even started and it's already front page news in the tabs:

nypost.com

There are so many unanswered questions in the story of Lois Goodman, the 70-year old Open umpire charged with killing her 80-year old husband. How do you kill someone with a coffee cup? Was there coffee in the cup? Who knew a 70-year old woman could be capable of, as the court documents reportedly say, “communicating with a male individual through the Internet”? What site did she use? Could my grandmother do that? Also, the LAPD can arrest someone in New York?

As for the tennis, after that speech at Wimbledon where he started bawling, I'm pulling for Andy Murray, who always says how much he loves New York.

Louisa Thomas

You are not getting carried away. The Williams sisters are fascinating but so hard to write about, because you get the sense that there's some central thing about them that no one else can understand. So that's the subject. He describes the circle around that center--or, actually, he has them describe it. It's not a question of opening up; it's something else.

In retrospect, I actually think Sullivan does a brilliant thing with that feint at the Richard/Compton/fervid-distractions-around-the-small-and-still-center--because it sets up the other small-and-still center, the "perfect bond of union" bond between the women. I'm a little dazed.

Louisa Thomas

One of the things that the piece reminds me--and this ties in to what other people are saying, I think--is that what used to seem old news suddenly seems new again. At the end of the French, I thought, that was nice, but then I shrugged. Was that only a few months ago? It seems like years. It's not like there's a new Djokovic in town, but everything seems open to possibility--even the the great fact of the same-old greatness.

Last year, Serena and Venus had a documentary crew following them around at the Open. I ran into one of the producers, who said they had gotten some pretty amazing access. Not sure when it will see the light of day, but it sounds like the sisters might be opening up, slightly, and in legacy promotion-mode.

Choire Sicha

I really loved the Sullivan piece too. I came in with a chip on my shoulder about it. (Dunno why!) But he really 1. got them to talk and then 2. really LET them talk in the piece, and that's SO REWARDING and ILLUMINATING. (Wow, I would love to see that documentary, Reeves!)

Now I need him to profile the (allegedly!?) murderous umpire.

I also want to say about Nadal that I saw him play back in March and he was HUGE. Like, he'd clearly spent the winter getting into shape, and he was so fit and lean and glowing. And to not have him playing now makes me feel for him (and for us, selfishly), because you could see how hard he'd worked with the impetus of Novak. But that's okay because I'm coming late, at long last, to team Federer!

I've definitely noticed a softening of both Venus, Serena, and the inner-circle over the last year. There was a time when a Venus or Serena presser was a complete waste of time. They would shut down, answer in cliches, and give you nothing. Now it's the opposite. They are both a pure joy, even after losses. Thoughtful, self-aware, and more honest than they used to be. It's like they've come to terms with the idea that there are benefits to letting people in. Or it could be that the wall they erected was too exhausting to maintain. Makes sense when you're battling an autoimmune disease or coming back from, as Serena describes it, a near-death experience. Either way, it's refreshing.

Sugarpova | Premium Line of Gummy Candies by Ma... sugarpova.com

Speaking of refreshing, who's up for some candy made by a tennis player because that makes sense obviously nom.

sugarpova.com

Choire Sicha

SUGARPOVA? Oh noes. That's a far cry from V Starr Interiors. Which, by the way, Venus seems really involved in? Like, taking real estate meetings and doing the heavy lifting, not like, "Oh I like these curtains, someone go buy them." And is very thoughtful and funny and human in person, much like what Courtney's saying. It's very interesting! I imagine it must be SO hard to talk about playing the game, so I never really hold it against people when they're like "Yeah he was a worthy opponent, I just tried to do my best" or whatever we heard 10000 times after every Olympic event. But to get MORE than that, it's outstanding...

Obviously winning this US Open would be an enormous moment for Murray, but it also would be, weirdly, for Federer. I know that's kind of a loopy thing to say about someone who has won 17 majors - and five US Opens - but Federer suffered such cruel losses to Djokovic in the semis in 2010 and 2011. Federer had match points in both, only to see Djokovic rally back (ruthlessly!), and the losses denied the Open one thing it's always wanted and has never got: Rafa v. Roger in the final.

But I think that suffering has been a boost to Federer. Maybe the struggles versus Nole and Nadal humanized him a bit. Remember: just one year ago, people were asking, straight-faced, if Federer would ever win another Slam. And watching Djokovic and Nadal in their 80-hour Australia epic, it seemed as if that they had broken off in their own little elite pod: they were now the first class, and Federer was trapped in business (the horror!). Louisa is right: all this feels like a million years ago.

Again, it's bizarre to treat the current #1 player in the world as a sentimental favorite, but I think there's going to be a little bit of that vibe around Federer at the Open this year.

Well, it's funny that sentimental vibe has existed for Federer the last couple of years in New York, right? I mean, the crowd was in the Federer tank in each of those semis. He sorta got the Agassi '05 treatment. OK, maybe not that much but even when Djokovic threw his hands up in the air--WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME--and everyone giggled at silly Novak you still felt the oxygen getting sucked out of Ashe BOTH TIMES when Fed lost.

Just personally: After Wimbledon, I'm ready to move on from Federer now. Let's go Murray! Or del Potro! Or someone else. We can give Federer the farewell tour treatment next year. Or you know, in 2016 after the RIO OLYMPICS.

Humanization has been a strong narrative throughout this year and it ties into Louisa's earlier point. In 2012 we have learned anything is possible and you don't have to be an unassailable sporting god to do it. Maria Sharapova completes the career Grand Slam on clay after coming back from career-threatening surgery? Sure. Rafa starting the season looking as vulnerable as ever only to strug and swag on clay? Dur. Roger Federer winning Wimbledon with a racquet in one hand and a media-prescribed cane in the other? Pfft. Serena bouncing back from a shock -- SHOCK I SAY -- loss at RG to set ace records at Wimbledon? Obviously. And Andy Murray winning something, anything at the All England Club? Ok, now I call BS.

It really is sort of an embarrassment of riches, isn't it? No tidy little narratives for us anymore.

Unless I missed something -- and apologies if I did -- nobody has mentioned the #1 US Open narrative of the past few years.

THE ROOF.

But what about the players for whom the perceived lack of humanization seems to define them? For all his charisma, intelligence, and wit -- and I'm not bloviating when I say he has tons of it -- Djokovic has never been able to ascend to that realm of sentimental favorite. Is it his brash personality? Is it the whole Serbia thing? Is it because everyone is all Fed/Nadal and they can't see anyone else? I guess playing a 92 hour match doesn't help humanize you. On court he's like tennis' T-2000, and yet he wants so badly to be liked.

Then there's Azarenka, whose 1Q dominance was THE story until it wasn't. She's had an outstanding year and now she's an afterthought.

Solution: Stop strutting, start crying. 67% of the time it works every time.

Consider me anti-roof. It's going to cost an insane amount of money to stave off a couple of delays, and won't do anything if it's early in the tournament and all the outer courts aren't covered. And then we would just get into the silly arguments they got into at Wimbledon about when to cover and not cover the court. That said, I've never watched tennis indoors. Do people like it?

Also, weren't they going to move the men's final to Monday, early evening, permanently? I like that idea, leading into the first Monday Night Football game each year. If it's a good match, you could get the casual fans tuned in at 7/8 p.m. for the last couple of sets.

Thomas Golianopoulos

Speaking of afterthoughts, remember Brian Baker? He's had a lousy summer hard court season.

Oh god, the ROOF. Is everyone else excited for our FIFTH straight Monday Final. Cause we know it's happening.

The saddest thing about the roof stuff is how the U.S. Open always used to be the most "modern" Grand Slam. Silly RG and Wimbledon with their DAYTIME tennis. Stupid Australia, no one wants to go there. And there's tennis in Queens. Players can wear whatever they want! We'll play till to 2 in the morning. We'll play loud music!

And now? Thanks to that roof issue, the Open is sorta the fogey-ish Grand Slam.

And yes, Reeves, I'm into that idea of the Monday Night Final. Sorta solves a lot of problems! But there goes the USTA, reupping with CBS which will never, ever broadcast a Monday night final.

I'm super-mega pro-non-roof. Every Slam should have an easy punchline. A topless Arthur Ashe is ours. It's fine. Britain gets a chance to shoot smug looks over the Pond, secure in their ability to build a multimillion dollar roofing system that makes players fall down and pretty much ensured that Andy Murray would not beat Roger Federer in the Wimbledon final. Good job, Britain! Gold stars and crumpets for you! May you succeed in making track cycling a Wimbledon event soon!

Yeah I agree that roof tennis is not ideal - when they close it at Wimbledon, it gets humid and stifling, and it bothers me that people like Federer love it because it's such a controlled environment, as if it's a laboratory, no points impacted by outside forces (tennis as molecular gastronomy!). I know players hate it but I **like** outside forces-- I like the crazy wind at the Open and the looming rain and how the 9 PM chill impacts play.

That said, it's flat-out scary and sad how tennis is not capitalizing on what may be one of the greatest periods in its history, in terms of TV ratings and growing audience. TV ***hates*** unpredictability -- remember a couple years ago, when Nole/Nadal moved from CBS to ESPN to ESPN 2 to Animal Planet to Spice Channel in the course of a single match because nobody wanted the terrible low-rated, rain-delayed albatross? It's annoying, but this is a reality tennis - and the USTA in particular - needs to confront.
Also: outside of Hawkeye, tennis on tv in 2012 pretty much looks like tennis on tv in 1981. This is not good.

Abandon best-of-five at Slams and let the guys do it the Olympic way: Best-of-three, no final set tiebreak, but have the final be best-of-five. Shorter matches, more predictable television windows, and maybe Rafa's knees wouldn't break so regularly.

Quoting John: "The Open is sorta the fogey-ish Grand Slam." True, perhaps, but it's still the best to attend. I got to go to the French Open for the first time this year, and the the top three courts are ticketed, and every court below that gets packed with people who only have grounds passes. The lines were insanely long. In Flushing, every court outside Ashe is open with just a GA ticket. Buy a cheap seat in Ashe at night, get there early, and just wander the grounds, then you can head inside Ashe if anything interesting is happening.

Plus, as a friend said recently, it's the only sporting event where they serve Grey Goose martinis in plastic glasses. The intermingling of high-low is fun to watch.

The U.S. Open draw has just been completed: Andy Murray is in Federer's half, Ferrer is in Djokovic's half, and EVERYONE EXCEPT SERENA is in Azarenka's half. Things are lookin' pretty darn good for ReRe.

Louisa Thomas

Not a good draw for Serena's sister. Venus could face Kerber in the 2nd.

Not a fan of the women's draw AT ALL: Azarenka, Lisicki, Li, Clijsters, Stosur, Sharapova, Pavlyuchenkova, and Kvitova all in the top half?

Agree, Louisa - Rough draw for Venus. You'd think she'd have earned some karma points by now. That said, if she can get past Kerber, she's got a very nice look to the semis. Unfortunately for her, Serena would be her projected opponent there. Augh, this bottom half is weak, I say. WEAK.

W/R/T couple points previously raised.

* I think it probably would be good for men's tennis to go back to best of 3 sets until the final. Personally I love the saga matches, but I am surprised by how often people will say they simply can't watch a 4-5 hour match, especially a non-final. I like the Olympic format: no-tiebreak third set, which created some real epics (Tsonga, Fed v. Del Potro) and keep a best of five for final. Sporting events generally run way too long.

* Baker did have a bad run after his great Wimbledon ride, but he did post a nice win the other day in Cincy over Philipp Kohlschreiber, who denied Baker a quarterfinal spot at Wimbledon. He will get a nice crowd at US Open, will be a good week one story for sure.