2012 U. S. Open Championships...New York, New York

[don_budge]

First headline is already in...Nadal is out. Stunning upset at Wimbledon...withdraws from the Olympics and now the US Open. What gives? Does that make David Ferrer the fourth seed and the projected opponent for the first seed...aka Roger Federer?

[stotty]

Nadal Out.

Shame Nadal is cropped...Nadal makes a tournament...he's the biggest draw. Roger is brilliant but a banal personality.

Still, let's see if Djokovic can regain the form he had in 2011...be interesting if can.

[don_budge]

The second...from the Top Ten

He's the second top ten player to disappear from the tour in the last year...anybody here remember Robin Söderling? His disappearance was supposedly due to mononucleosis and now it is Nadal's knee(s). Neither medical condition has been thoroughly discussed from a medical standpoint. Robin has virtually disappeared. Here in Sweden there has not been any news to speak of.

[don_budge]

U. S. Open Draw...Question?

Federer draws the third seed in the semis...what gives? I thought that the one seed played the fourth seed and the two seed played the third seed. Otherwise what is the advantage of earning the one seed?

[stotty]

Federer draws the third seed in the semis...what gives? I thought that the one seed played the fourth seed and the two seed played the third seed. Otherwise what is the advantage of earning the one seed?

I agree.

[tennis_chiro]

I'm disappointed in you guys

Federer draws the third seed in the semis...what gives? I thought that the one seed played the fourth seed and the two seed played the third seed. Otherwise what is the advantage of earning the one seed?

While the NCAA penchant for pairing 1 vs 64, 2 vs 63 etc in March Madness has probaby dominated the general public's understanding of seeding, I expected you to understand tennis's age old practice (right or wrong) of using the "luck of the draw" to determine position of seeds. According to that practice, there is no difference in placement of seeds for 3 vs 4. In fact there is no actual 6th seed, just 4 5th seeds. And correspondingly, 8 9th seeds and 16 17th seeds. I always did it with a flip of a coin and if 5 went up, another flip of the coin was still necessary to determine which quarter in the top half. But then I would put 6 in the bottom half with the quarter determined by a flip. But the way the rule reads (excerpted below from the 2012 USTA Friend at Court), there is no difference between 3 and 4, 5 through 8, 9 through 16 or 17 through 32. According to the way I read the rule, 17 through 20 could conceivably end up in the first quarter along with 1. 5. 9, 10. That was not the way I understood the old rule, but they are making no distinction between the 17th and 32nd seed. There is a difference in who gets to move up if there is a loss of a seed ahead and in the distribution of the byes (priority to higher seed), but not in the actual draw.

don
PS Stotty, the LTA may run Wimbledon off a different rule book, but I believe this lack of seeding priority is a longstanding ITF modus operandi.

Here is the excerpt from "Friend at Court"(I added a few spaces for clarity; otherwise, verbatim):

USTA's Friend at Court (2012) beginning on page 73

B. Making the Draw


1. Public draw. The draw, computer or manual, shall be made in public at the
time and place specified by the Tournament Committee.


2. Draw made by Referee or Deputy Referee. The Referee or a Deputy
Referee, assisted by at least one Tournament Committee member and
preferably by two members, shall make the draw. The Referee and the
Deputy Referee shall be jointly responsible for the draw’s compliance
with applicable USTA Regulations. If the Referee has a Deputy Referee
make the draw, the Referee shall determine when the Deputy Referee
shall return the draw to the Referee, at which time the authority of the
Deputy Referee over the draw ceases.

FAC Comment II.B-1: When a district, sectional, or the national office has a
person who assists the Referee in making the draw, this person is appointed
as a Deputy Referee and serves as a member of the Tournament Committee as
long as the person’s authority as a Deputy Referee remains in place. These
Deputy Referees should be certified as Referees by the USTA or should have
undergone current Referee training with the USTA.


3. Draw formats. USTA Regulations describe the procedures that Referees
shall follow when they run single elimination draws, First Match Losers
Consolations, voluntary Sign-Up Consolation, Feed-In Championships,
round robins, and compass draws. Tournaments may use other draw
formats. When a tournament uses other formats, the Referee shall post
at the tournament the procedures defining the format before the start of
play. Referees shall follow USTA Regulations except for those USTA
Regulations changed by the posted procedures.


4. Main draw. When the number of players is 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, or any
higher power of two, they shall meet in even pairs in progressive elimination
in accordance with the following pattern:

a. Balancing seeds. The principle of drawing to position the seeds
shall be applied so that the same number of seeds will fall in each
half of the draw, in each quarter of the draw, etc.

b. Positioning seeds. The first seed shall be positioned on the top line of the
draw, and the second seed shall be positioned on the bottom line of the
draw. The position of the remaining seeds shall be determined by lot
using the procedure described below, with each seeded player in the
top half of the draw being positioned on the top line of the bracket for
which that seed is drawn, and each seeded player in the bottom half of
the draw being positioned on the bottom line of the bracket for which
that seed is drawn. The procedure for different size draws with the
maximum number of seeds is shown in Table 6.

c. Using byes to fill out draw. When there are not enough players to
put one player on each line in the draw, byes are added. This serves
to bring to the second round a player on each line so that there can
be an orderly progression down to two finalists. For example, with


TABLE 6
Positioning Seeds

A. Draw of 12-16 with 4 seeds.
Seed 1 Line 1
Seed 2 Line 16
Seeds 3 & 4 Drawn at random for line 5 or 12

B. Draw of 24-32 with 8 seeds.
Seed 1 Line 1
Seed 2 Line 32
Seeds 3 & 4 Drawn at random for line 9 or 24
Seeds 5-8 Drawn at random for line 5, 13, 20, or 28

C. Draw of 48-64 with 16 seeds.
Seed 1 Line 1
Seed 2 Line 64
Seeds 3 & 4 Drawn at random for line 17 or 48
Seeds 5-8 Drawn at random for line 9, 25, 40, or 56
Seeds 9-16 Drawn at random for line 5, 13, 21, 29, 36, 44, 52, or 60

D. Draw of 96-128 with 32 seeds.
Seed 1 Line 1
Seed 2 Line 128
Seeds 3 & 4 Drawn at random for line 33 or 96
Seeds 5-8 Drawn at random for line 17, 49, 80 or 112
Seeds 9-16 Drawn at random for line 9, 25, 41, 57, 72, 88, 104,
or 120
Seeds 17-32 Drawn at random for line 5, 13, 21, 29, 37, 45, 53, 61,
68, 76, 84, 92, 100, 108, 116, or 124

[stotty]

Wimbledon

At Wimbledon the top 2 seed are placed in opposite halves of the draw (obviously) but seeds 3 and 4 are drawn randomly and could end up in either half of the draw. It used to be 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 but this policy was abandoned some time ago I believe. I'm fairly sure about this...but not absolutely certain.

Seedings at Wimbledon don't always follow the world rankings. Wimbledon for many years now has reserved the right to seed players according to their ability on grass... based on a player's results on grass over the previous 24 months. This became policy in 2002. In the years previous to 2002 seeding were adjusted at the discretion of the tournament committee. The 2002 policy has become less and less useful because:

1 There only a few grass court tournaments around these days...so all too often players have no results to glean anything from.

2 The Wimbledon grass more closely resembles other sufaces since the committee took the decision the change the grass seed to 100% rye. Previously Wimbledon used three different type of grass seeds. Now the grass is much firmer and bounces higher...gone are the shooting bounces of yesteryear. With grass more closely resembling other surfaces there is less need or reason to judge players' form on grass.

Seeding players on their ability to perform on grass was far more useful years ago when grass was grass. There would have been little point seeding Vilas number 2 on grass when he was utterly hopeless on the surface, despite being world-class everywhere else. Same with Dibbs and Solomon...Solomon never got past round one in five attempts.

Amazing when you think that Forest Hills and The Australian Open were also played on grass years ago....three of the slams were once played on grass.

Things have changed over the years but not necessarily for the better. Peter Flemming and Matts were saying recently the reason why the top three have been so dominant is due to the lack of court-surface variety. There are no quick grass courts or fast indoor carpet anymore. Years ago players like Tanner or Dibley would have blitzed a few wins on these surfaces even with the likes of Borg, Connors and Mac around. Now that possibility has been removed, equivalent players today are unlikely snatch a title or two off the big guns. The days of sheer serving power won't win a player titles...nor will sheer artistry. It's all about thumping groundstrokes and consistency. The relentless consistency of the top three makes them near impossible to beat. Rosol had to play the greatest match in history to beat Nadal in FIVE SETS.

I don't put Federer in the thumping groundstrokes bracket. He is an anomaly. A genius. The exception.

I think Peter and Matts may have a good point. The game has become very predictable. The last 30 grand slams say it all.

[tennis_chiro]

I'm pretty sure about this

At Wimbledon the top 2 seed are placed in opposite halves of the draw (obviously) but seeds 3 and 4 are drawn randomly and could end up in either half of the draw. It used to be 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 but this policy was abandoned some time ago I believe. I'm fairly sure about this...but not absolutely certain.:

Checking ATP yearbook, Wimbledon finals in '86, '94 and '99 all show 1st and 4th seeds meeting in the finals, so there was no 1vs4 & 2vs3 scenario in the semis.

Also, I think it's relatively recent that they seed or even place more than 16 players. The tournament would be more interesting if they just seeded 8 and placed the next 8. It used to be a "floater" was anyone just outside of that top 16, but now there are no 1st or 2nd round surprises unless it comes from someone outside the top 32. It happens, but it is pretty rare for the top 8 to lose in the first two rounds.

don

[don_budge]

That's Just the Way It Is...Roger Hornsby. Not necessarily so... says don_budge!

Sorry if I disappointed you tennis_chiro but I more or less refuse to stand corrected...but once again I am right and it doesn't matter if everyone else says that I am wrong. The Right...just like the Truth is not a numbers game. Votes don't count in The Kingdom.

Being seeded is a right that is earned. If you earn the number one seed you have done it over a course of time and effort. What exactly is it that you have earned? To me...you have statistically earned the right, or rather the best chance, to meet the second best player in the tournament in the finals. Just as earning the lower seeds have been earned over time and effort. So why not systematically give the system a logical and fair conclusion? Why not give it some deeper and more profound meaning? Why not give VALUE to the seed earning system? Why the randomness...the key to any organization is it's organization.

That being said...the only fair way to handle the seeding is thus...the #1 and the #2 are at opposite ends of the draw. These are the two that are preordained to reach the finals...based on their performance. Then if we proceed with any sense of logic the #4 will play the #1 in the semi's as well the #3 will play the #2. If I were deity of tennis tournaments and it was up to me I would proceed through the #5 and #8 seeds in a similar method and the rest of the seeds you can do what you will. Actually, come to think of it, I would take this system to the logical end...if you seed 16 then I would use this pairing system to the conclusion. Why not?

The practicality and orderliness of my proposal is evident in the U. S. Open draw. The Once and Future King (Federer) has earned the right and the tennis viewing audience has earned the right to see the most drama for the buck. The most drama in this case is pretty obvious to me and that would be a final with Roger Federer and the winner of Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray. I rest my case.

The final that I want to see is Roger Federer vs. Andy Murray because I am having a hard time resolving the contrast in the last two matches between these two men. But at the same time an equally compelling argument could be made for a Federer vs. Djokovic final. Who wouldn't want to see a replay of the 2011 semifinal when Djokovic hurled that bolt of lightening from nowhere and made that DeNiroesque face from the Russian Roulette scene in "The Deer Hunter" to the New York throng on that September night in The Big Apple? But in my book, both of these contestants must battle their way past the other to have the honor of facing the #1 seed. Plus the #1 seed deserves to play either of these guys once they have conceivably weakened each other with a tougher semi final than the #1 seed theoretically draws by playing my hypothetical #4 seed. Get my drift?

What if the Spanish Conquistador was in the draw? The semifinal match ups that I would want to see then would be Federer vs. Murray and Djokovic vs. Nadal...if they were seeded accordingly. As far as I am concerned Federer as the #1 seed would of earned himself the right to face the weakest link in the semi's while the other two beat each other up in the other semi. A shame about the disappearance of Rafael by the way...I am curious as to the truth of that matter also. Whatever happened to Söderling by the way also? Nobody is talking...it must be a secret.

The only possible way that the tennis viewers and the players have to see the best of all possible permutation or combination of all possible events, is if the #1 plays the #4 and the #2 plays the #3...and so on. They, referring to all of the players in the draw, have earned the right to face each other in the finals provided they can answer all of the questions asked of them on a gradually escalating level that their performances have "guaranteed" or "earned" them...throughout the tournament.

But that makes sense...so that is the reason why they have probably deviated from such a system. Probably someone has deemed it the politically correct thing to do. I wouldn't dare to argue with you about the way it is...but I reserve my right to make a plea for doing the right thing...that is, obtaining the highest degree of justice possible. Thanks for the enlightenment as well...tennis_chiro! I didn't know that. And now that I know it...I still don't agree with it.

Man...the tournament hasn't even started and I am already worked up into a lather. Come on Roger...bow your neck! (as my father says)

[don_budge]

I Wish, I Wish. Wishlist...Pearl Jam. The projected quarterfinals.

"I wish I was the verb to trust...and never let you down." Eddie Vedder.

I wish that I was in New York City...covering the U. S. Open for tennisplayer.net or somebody. Anybody. I have decided that would be my dream job...to be a tennis journalist. I am just dreaming out here in the wilderness of Sweden. Just wanted to share that thought. The silence here is deafening sometimes...I can even hear myself think. The first rounds are a bit ho hum even in the Slam Events...someone needs to concoct some good stories. I am available for the French Open next spring and I plan on being in Paris. I am going to Paris in December for a horse show to case the joint.

But nevertheless...to start a discussion about women or cars or horses or dogs would probably be thought of as inappropriate here, off thread at least and not to mention too personal as the only real true writer on this forum might suggest. So let's take a look at how the draw at the 2012 U. S. Open Championships would look if I was making it vs. what it looks like with the rules that our very own tennis_chiro has cited.

The "real" draw...the projected quarterfinals.

Federer (1) vs. Berdych (6)
Murray (3) vs. Tsonga (5)
Tipsarevic (8) vs. Ferrer (4)
Del Potro (7) vs. Djokovic (2)

Which logically projects to...

Federer vs. Murray
Djokovic vs. Ferrer

The way "I" see it...the projected quarterfinals the way they "should" be.

Federer (1) vs. Tipsarevic (8)
Ferrer (4) vs. Tsonga (5)
Murray (3) vs. Berdych (6)
Djokovic (2) vs. Del Potro (7)

Which would logically project to...

Federer vs. Ferrer
Djokovic vs. Murray

I like the projected matches with the "controlled" placement of the seeds compared to the "random" selections that are being used. You can see that the #1 seed gets the benefit of the draw that he has earned...in keeping with the ancient traditions of tennis. Wimbledon used to give the defending champion a free pass all the way to the finals.

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/david+bowie/suffragette+city_20036917.html

Federer slips past Donald Young in a straight set "wham bam thank you maam", Suffragette City...David Bowie style sort of match. "What I Like About You" by the Romantics, another Detroit rock band, blaring in the background as Federer leisurely crosses his legs during the changeover before he resumes pummeling the "Young American" or "The Diamond Dog" into next week...take your pick. The tennis was early round Federesque...he toyed with Young and made him look like an old man. Federer's pace was way too quick for the younger opponent. He looks to be in superb form. Bottom line...Federer was in position ninety percent of the time, Young was in position ten percent of the time. Roger was all over him like a cheap suit.

The art of winning? Federer gets it. Young does not. Young had zero options other than to play the one game he knows how to play. When he got into the midcourt he was like a fish out of water. Even a surprise play of serve and volley behind his decent lefty serve was an absent option. We don't know about his net game...we never saw it. Well I guess that says it all, it doesn't exist.

There was very little to say about the actual tennis so just a couple of words about the respective fashion statements of the two players. Roger...if you are going to wear all dark blue right on down to your shoes...why would you wear white socks? Come on, Fed...you cannot be serious (in a McEnroe voice reverberating the entire stadium). Those white socks were glaring in the New York nighttime under the TV lights. A trifle gauche. Young won the most accessories category of the match, 6-0. Donald...two big diamond studs for earrings, a watch and two other wrist accessories, plus the necklace. Federer...zero accessories. Good for you, Roger. Nothing more to say. Wait...just one more thing for Donald Young. I suggest that you lose the Nike cap and start to wear the headband...it will accessorize better with the earrings.

The Swiss are marching. He has a date in the semi's he doesn't want to be late for or miss. Speaking of which...his projected date, Andy Murray, served at 28 percent first serve percentage in his first set of his first round match. He won the set 6-2 anyways. But is this further indication that there may be some kind of rhythmic issue in the Murray service motion? Does it have anything to do with how the heart flutters when the pressure is on? On the other hand...Murray color coordinated better than Federer last night. Stay tuned.

[don_budge]

The 1984 U. S. Open...my all-time favorite sporting event!

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/about/history/years.html?promo=subnav#1981

The U. S. Open has always been my favorite sporting event of all time. Although I could be biased (could?) ever since that day some 28 years ago in the Orwellian year of 1984. The greatest day of tennis ever. The GDOTE. According to Bud Collins no less. I was on the scene. Memories...of the way we were. I remember not going to the finals even though I had a pass. Nothing could top the day before...once again I was right. Instead...I looked up my girlfriend from the Don Budge Tennis Camp from 1973 and met her in Central Park just to hold her beautiful hand one more time. Karen...she was engaged to be married. One more criss cross across my poor old heart...a victim of Cupid's arrow once again. Railroad tracks across my soul.

Times have changed since then of course. Looking at the video that my sister, Linda, managed to tape for me on the old VCR format the commercials from 1984 are pretty amusing..if not Orwellian as well. There was Arthur Ashe representing Head Tennis Racquets. There was some big galute touting the new Magnesium Prince...Eric something or other. Anyone remember his name? Huge serve with little to back it up save for his association with the bane of classic tennis...Prince racquets. Apple computers were going viral...you modern day geeks would have a good laugh looking at those "new" models at the time. So big and clumsy. So slow. Just think at what you can do with your phone nowadays compared to what the technology had to offer back then. And you want me to believe that we actually went to the moon? The real Don Budge sitting in champions row. don_budge sitting somewhere...among the lost souls.

But the tennis today is spectacular in its speed and power...no doubt about it. Just looking up and down the draw sheets there are no touch and tactical players around...except possibly one. You know who. The Man. Federer. But the first round matches tend to be rather yawners, but it is funny to see how quickly things can heat up in the Big Apple at the Open. That is what makes it so spectacular. It's an exhausting two weeks...for the players, the fans and the writers, I suppose.

Some of the matches that I find interesting and compelling so far happen to be in the bottom half of the draw that is not yet completed:

Andy Roddick vs. Berhard Tomic
Fabio Fognini vs. Guillermo Garcia-Lopez
Alexandr Dolgopolov vs. Marcos Baghdatis

Just three rather incidental rounds that will probably be of no consequence once we get to the heart of the matter. But interesting nonetheless. Roddick's star has slowly been descending into obscurity as he gradually disappears as the best that America has to offer up in terms of professional tennis. He is not so interesting in himself but his matchup with Tomic adds some contrast in that Tomic has been pegged as an up and comer but so far has failed to deliver. When will he? Ever? Such is the fate of tennis players making their quest and the climb up the ladder. It is a precarious and mighty difficult climb. Not for the feint of heart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTIxobZMzBg

Look at how beautifully Panatta closes on the net to hit the forehand angle volley...but Connors runs it down and shovels it down the line one handed for a clean winner. i remember watching Panatta practicing on a back court the day before. He was so beautiful to watch...I remember that. I remember saying to my buddy...this guy has a chance against Connors, he's awesome. Right again...he had a chance but Connors yanked it out of his grasp by the grit of his teeth.

Fabio Fognini is a handsome Italian player that is fun to watch. Speaking of which...anyone remember Adriano Panatta? I was there when Jimmy Connors hit this shot on match point against him in 1978...or something like that. I was sitting up in the very top row...wasted in the spectacle of the Open. Fabulous Fabio carries a permanent petulant look on his dark and bearded continence as he skulks around the court between points. He has a bit of spunk in him but it remains to be seen if it is mostly good looks and image. Can he crack into the upper echelons with looks alone? I doubt it. The ladies like to watch him...and of course we like to watch them.

Alexandr Dolgopolov has been brought to our attention here on tennisplayer.net from the throng of professionals that grace the tour. We had a photo portrait and we had a good look at his service motion as well. Someone even posted an article about his unique circumstances...it may of been me. He is a go for broke type of player and it will be interesting to see how he and the wily veteran Cyprian fare. It could be quite a battle...of little consequence in the end.

One third round match that I am dying to see if it should materialize...Brian Baker vs. The Cabbage Patch Kid (Philipp Kohlschreiber). Should Baker get so far as to be involved in an experience and rematch like this it might be a turning point in his exciting comeback...from all kinds of obstacles. You have to love him!

Just walking around the grounds at Flushing Meadows is quite an experience. You never know who you might run into. If you ever get the chance to go backstage...do it. You won't be disappointed to find out what is going on behind the scenes in the preparation of the players...to feel the energy and the build up of anticipation. Reminds me of the old gladiator days when I was a small boy. I never thought I would live to see a million!

[stotty]

Plenty of Americans seem to be progressing through the draw. Robson beats Clijsters...where did that result come from!? Murray's looking tasty...Djokovic looks even better. Djokovic needs to win this tournament to reassert that he is the best...Murray needs to win because the Olympics isn't a grand slam, or anything like it...still needs to prove himself for us Brits....Federer, well, he doesn't need to do or prove anything anymore.

Boring tournament so far...can't wait for the latter stages.

[don_budge]

Jockeying for position...

Boring tournament so far...can't wait for the latter stages.

That is the way it usually is in Grand Slam events. It just takes a few days for the action to heat up...for the crescendo. The climactic scenes. Although the draw may partially be rigged against us. Plenty of potential drama left in this baby...we are barely simmering at this point. The players are merely jockeying for position at this point. For the home stretch from the quarter finals to the end. Top seeds Roger Federer and Andy Murray have similar challenges in their respective third rounds...seeded left handed Spaniards. Let's see how they handle their opponents and compare their form as they jockey for position in the stretch run. Olympic Gold vs. Grand Slam prestige. Sham vs. the Real Thing. I smell some genuine drama in the offing.

Here's one for you...licensedcoach. Speaking of Americans emerging as one settles into the horizon...Bryan Baker vs. Jarko Tipsarevic. A victory here puts our "Comeback Kid" into position to become the "New Kid in Town" (The Eagles). How I would love to see him play the "Cabbage Patch Kid" should that match come to fruition. Baker vs. Kohlschreiber would be everything you could hope for in the early rounds to overcome the tedious monotony that gives one the inclination to yawn and nap a bit. Revenge for that full moon loss at Wimbledon. Kohlscheiber has to get through John Isner though which will be a "tall" order.

Say goodbye to the "Baby Bull" from France. He went down to someone that I had never heard of before with barely a whimper. Martin Klizan from Slovakia. Who? Where? It's a shame but that is life in the big city. New York...just like I pictured it. Skyscrapers and everything. More and more we have grown accustomed to seeing this giant hunk of a player in the later stages of tournaments but he has shown us his human side once again. He doesn't cut it in the end. I still say that the Dolgopolov (spelled it right the first time this time) vs. Baghdatis match has some potential drama if it can live up to my billing.

Then there is the "Sunset Kid" Andy Roddick who has announced his retirement to settle down with his lovely squeeze...who can blame him. He has his hands full in more ways than one then...with the up and coming Tomic though. That would be great for a last hurrah Roddick style. The announcement was a great way to get the New York rabid thong (oops I meant throng) behind him. Great strategy and tactics Andy! He has a boatload in the bank probably. Oh...the life of a superstar. Why get married though?

You know what else I like here in the early stages. Kia Nishikori. His match up with Marion Cilic spells trouble for the Croatian. Two five setters under the belt of Cilic is about all this guy will be able to stomach once he encounters the Japanese wunderkind samurai with the fresh legs and two straight set victories. I just noticed that Lleyton Hewitt is still in the draw...showing some grit in his old age. In his case too it becomes a question of legs. Grit can only take you so far these days in the modern game of tennis. As Tilden once said..."Youth to the Fore".

The Djokovic half of the draw looks to be markedly weaker than the Federer half. The seeding system has deprived this tournament what it deserves to have...the best possible match ups in the later stages of the tournament. As the tournament progresses we will see how once again...things can get mucked up. SNAFU...Situation Normal All Fucked Up.

No small wonder McEnroe was always going off on the tennis establishment. Going ballistic on the incompetent fools. He sort of partially made a career of that didn't he? As for the Americans...they will be disappearing in droves in the next couple of rounds as the stronger players begin to prevail. It would be nice to see one or two in the quarters...perhaps we could interpret that as a sign of progress. I like James Blake and always have. I would love to see him take down Milos Raonic and advance to a match with Andy Murray. I think he has a chance. Then if he could take out the Olympic Gold Medalist we would really have licensedcoach boiling in his own tea. Another Tea Party?

[don_budge]

The Round of 32...a wake up call!

[1] R Federer (SUI) vs [25] F Verdasco (ESP)
[3] A Murray (GBR) vs [30] F Lopez (ESP)
[6] T Berdych (CZE) vs [27] S Querrey (USA)
[11] N Almagro (ESP) vs J Sock (USA)
[12] M Cilic (CRO) vs [17] K Nishikori (JPN)
[15] M Raonic (CAN) vs J Blake (USA)
[16] G Simon (FRA) vs [23] M Fish (USA)
[32] J Chardy (FRA) vs M Klizan (SVK)

Well here is the lineup for today. Every single match is capable of some entertainment value in one way or another. Even Federer has a real live opponent on his hands. Murray too. Each faces tough left handed Spaniards...fortunately for the #1 and #3 seeds neither of their opponents is named Rafael Nadal. Where is Rafa by the way? Nursing injured knees is the word.

But going down the list there is always some room for doubt. Take Tomas Berdych and Sam Querry. Why would you rule out Sudden Sam before the contest begins? He has earned his spot and a chance to rise to the occasion. Almagro and Sock may be a different story...Niclas looks lean and mean and I don't even know who Sock is. So we can say with little uncertainty the Americans in this case will probably go to the backdraw at this point...but don't count anyone out yet.

But looking further I think we have four rather compelling matches and it is about that time. The jockeys have their steeds in position and with one more match they will have cemented their position for the stretch run for the trophy. Marion Cilic and Kia Nishikori? I really like this match and hope that I get the chance to watch it. One has to wonder if Cilic has spent too much fuel for this match with the Samurai Kid. Milos Raonic vs. James Blake? Here is one American who believes that he can get it done and I want to believe in him too. This guy is a real fighter when he is right and he looks to be sharp and ready for the long tall Canadian. Simon and Fish. Wow...here is a wild call. Does Fish have enough match play under his belt or is the Frenchman too fit and wily to serve as bait for Fish? This last match between Chardy and Klizan should be a real zinger. Chardy took out a less than motivated Murray not so long ago and Klizan is coming off a big upset win of the #5 seed. Both steeds are feeling their oats...so to speak.

Lots of emotion involved throughout the day. Lots of energy to be expended chasing the little yellow mouse around the court. What a great day to be at the Open and the only reason for being in the Big Apple as far as I am concerned. Time to get a good look at the front runners...Federer and Murray. Time to evaluate their form as they draw nearer to one big titanic clash. Curious that they have similar challenges on their plate which give a perfect chance to get a finger on their respective pulses. I suspect that Federer's heart is in perfect synch while Murray's may just be beginning to flutter just a bit. Fortunately he has that Dour Czech in his corner...Count Ivan the Terrible. You know Lendl used to have the moniker of a choker but he dispelled that myth with a vengeance. Murray hopes to have a similar legacy before he is through. Developing a dominate service game will help immensely in that regard.

They both have some serious obstacles in their paths...particularly Federer who somehow seems to earned himself the toughest section of the draw. Of course that is debatable but that is how it appears to me. Ironically it looks as if the #3 and #4 seeds have the weakest sections. At any rate the action is slowly beginning to heat up. Seven Americans still in the race with a number of them having real possibilities of advancing.

I wonder if Fab Fognini has the game to challenge Andy Roddick and hasten his retirement plans. That could be interesting but it will be tough for Fognini to beat Roddick in front of a partisan crowd. I don't think he has that kind of grit but at this point in the tournament funny things can happen.:

Speaking of women...how about that Laura Robson? Sam Stosur next. Two American gals remaining and if they each win their next match they face each other. How can Serena possibly be the #4 seed? I guess it really doesn't matter in the end. Who is going to beat her?

[bottle]

Laura Robson beats Li Na. Was in Canada and didn't see it (although they do have TV's up there), but Kim played well. So I would have to say that these two results came from Laura rather than from her opponents.