Men's Preview...
Men’s Draw
Round of 16
Federer v. Kiefer - Kiefer is crazy, and that can be entertaining. But Rule No. 1 from before still applies. Federer in 3.
Nalbandian v. Sanguinetti - Sanguinetti is a 33 year old journeyman who has never been past the quarters of any grand slam, and never past the third round at the open. He just played a punishing 5 set match against Paradorn Srichaphan. None of that really applies to Nalbandian. Nalbandian in 3.
Hewitt v. Hrbaty - Taylor Dent really gave Hewitt a tough five setter in the last round. Luckily for Hewitt, Hrbaty isn’t a serve and volleyer. He’s also incredibly fit and has a day off. Hewitt in 4.
Verdasco v. Nieminen - I’d like to pretend this match matters. I’d like to pull Rule No. 2 on this one. But Verdasco is Spanish and therefore I’m assuming a clay court specialist – not to stereotype. Why not put a Finn in the quarters? Nieminen in 5.
Coria v. Massu - Remember Massu, that completely unknown Chilean that won the gold medal in both singles and doubles tennis at Athens last year? After having a horrendous go of it for the last year, he decides to show up again. This is already his best showing at a major ever. By the way, check Coria’s line at the other majors this year: 3 4th round exits. 4 for 4 on the 4th round? Massu in 4.
Gasquet v. Ginepri - I should watch out for going down the slippery slope of wildly overestimating the number of upsets on the men’s side. (See my Wimbledon picks for details.) “Wildly” has also been a word thrown around to describe Gasquet’s talent – as in “wildly talented.” Fact: Ginepri played brilliantly in Cincinnati. Fact: Gasquet is a teenager and his quality of play fluctuates “wildly.” Fact: Ginepri in 4.
Agassi v. Malisse - Malisse is the best Belgian men’s player on the tour right now. Unlike the women’s side that means very little. He’s very inconsistent... in fact, from now on, let’s just use TBVI to mean “Talented But Very Incosistent,” which describes about everyone on the Men’s tour ranked under 10. Meanwhile, Agassi is the bastion of consistency on the men’s game and matches up well against any TBVI. But the Berdych match showed the TBVI’s always have a punchers chance
against him. But still, Agassi in 3.
Blake v. Robredo - Blake beat Nadal and must be high as a kite. Watching his game the last two weeks, which included a title in Connecticut, it looks like only King Roger himself could beat Blake at the level he’s at. Sorry Tommy. It’d be a different story if you caught James on the clay. Blake in 3.
Quarterfinals
Federer v. Nalbandian - Before you give the US Open to Federer, consider the following: Nalbandian is the only player left in the draw to have a career winning record against Roger (5-2). Nalbandian was mere points away from reaching the final two years ago, before Roddick staged an astonishing comeback. Roger has played one tournament since Wimbledon because of a foot injury. He won it, but has looked unspectacular – beatable even – since his return. Arguing to the contrary, he’s lost
three matches this year. He’s 64-3 coming in! Federer... in 5!
Hewitt v. Niemenin - Rule 1. Hewitt in 3.
Massu v. Ginepri - It sounds crazy, I know. But does it really sound any less crazy than trying to pick a Coria/Gasquet match? Hmmm? Ginepri in 4.
Agassi v. Blake - Far and away the two most popular people left at this tournament. This is the match everyone wants. The crazy thing is, it’s nearly impossible to pick. My heart says Blake, my soul says Agassi, and my head says the winner of this goes to the finals. They haven’t played in 2 years. My theory is that while hero worship isn’t an issue against Nadal, it could be with Agassi. Blake’s already adopted the shaved head to combat baldness a la Andre. Andre in 4.
Semifinals
Federer v. Hewitt - The real reason I picked these two guys is so that Federer could beat Hewitt in a Semifinal again. Federer in 3, winning 2 sets at love. Oh Snap!
Agassi v. Ginepri - Even if Agassi does not play Ginepri in a strong American showing, he’s the favorite to get to finals in a draw sans Nadal and Roddick. His main competition is Blake, Coria, and Gasquet. So the question you’ve got to ask yourself is, do you see any of those three beating Andre? Blake I’ve already expressed my opinion on. I don’t think Coria’s clay court style would hold up. Gasquet I could see, but he’s lucky to have made it this far considering his
results. If he actually plays Ginepri, Agassi in 3. Otherwise, Agassi in 4.
Finals
Federer v. Agassi - I was real close to calling Federer/Blake, or even Federer/Coria. The second scenario would be a nightmare because I think Coria might last 70 minutes against Federer on a hard court. Once again, I’ve taken the two top seeds left. While I think Federer and Agassi could both be upset, this is the dream scenario. This is what everyone wants. Everyone would watch this beginning to end.
Do you think the crowd might get behind Agassi a bit? Do you think he’ll be pumped? Do you think he’ll cry if he wins? Do you think Federer would be phased in the least? Do you think Agassi could still win even if Federer wasn’t? Even just a little? Yes. Yes. Yes. No. No. And that’s why they play the match. My powers of prognostication are being hampered by a pool of drool forming on the keyboard. I won’t pick a winner. I don’t want to jinx this final.
Round of 16
Federer v. Kiefer - Kiefer is crazy, and that can be entertaining. But Rule No. 1 from before still applies. Federer in 3.
Nalbandian v. Sanguinetti - Sanguinetti is a 33 year old journeyman who has never been past the quarters of any grand slam, and never past the third round at the open. He just played a punishing 5 set match against Paradorn Srichaphan. None of that really applies to Nalbandian. Nalbandian in 3.
Hewitt v. Hrbaty - Taylor Dent really gave Hewitt a tough five setter in the last round. Luckily for Hewitt, Hrbaty isn’t a serve and volleyer. He’s also incredibly fit and has a day off. Hewitt in 4.
Verdasco v. Nieminen - I’d like to pretend this match matters. I’d like to pull Rule No. 2 on this one. But Verdasco is Spanish and therefore I’m assuming a clay court specialist – not to stereotype. Why not put a Finn in the quarters? Nieminen in 5.
Coria v. Massu - Remember Massu, that completely unknown Chilean that won the gold medal in both singles and doubles tennis at Athens last year? After having a horrendous go of it for the last year, he decides to show up again. This is already his best showing at a major ever. By the way, check Coria’s line at the other majors this year: 3 4th round exits. 4 for 4 on the 4th round? Massu in 4.
Gasquet v. Ginepri - I should watch out for going down the slippery slope of wildly overestimating the number of upsets on the men’s side. (See my Wimbledon picks for details.) “Wildly” has also been a word thrown around to describe Gasquet’s talent – as in “wildly talented.” Fact: Ginepri played brilliantly in Cincinnati. Fact: Gasquet is a teenager and his quality of play fluctuates “wildly.” Fact: Ginepri in 4.
Agassi v. Malisse - Malisse is the best Belgian men’s player on the tour right now. Unlike the women’s side that means very little. He’s very inconsistent... in fact, from now on, let’s just use TBVI to mean “Talented But Very Incosistent,” which describes about everyone on the Men’s tour ranked under 10. Meanwhile, Agassi is the bastion of consistency on the men’s game and matches up well against any TBVI. But the Berdych match showed the TBVI’s always have a punchers chance
against him. But still, Agassi in 3.
Blake v. Robredo - Blake beat Nadal and must be high as a kite. Watching his game the last two weeks, which included a title in Connecticut, it looks like only King Roger himself could beat Blake at the level he’s at. Sorry Tommy. It’d be a different story if you caught James on the clay. Blake in 3.
Quarterfinals
Federer v. Nalbandian - Before you give the US Open to Federer, consider the following: Nalbandian is the only player left in the draw to have a career winning record against Roger (5-2). Nalbandian was mere points away from reaching the final two years ago, before Roddick staged an astonishing comeback. Roger has played one tournament since Wimbledon because of a foot injury. He won it, but has looked unspectacular – beatable even – since his return. Arguing to the contrary, he’s lost
three matches this year. He’s 64-3 coming in! Federer... in 5!
Hewitt v. Niemenin - Rule 1. Hewitt in 3.
Massu v. Ginepri - It sounds crazy, I know. But does it really sound any less crazy than trying to pick a Coria/Gasquet match? Hmmm? Ginepri in 4.
Agassi v. Blake - Far and away the two most popular people left at this tournament. This is the match everyone wants. The crazy thing is, it’s nearly impossible to pick. My heart says Blake, my soul says Agassi, and my head says the winner of this goes to the finals. They haven’t played in 2 years. My theory is that while hero worship isn’t an issue against Nadal, it could be with Agassi. Blake’s already adopted the shaved head to combat baldness a la Andre. Andre in 4.
Semifinals
Federer v. Hewitt - The real reason I picked these two guys is so that Federer could beat Hewitt in a Semifinal again. Federer in 3, winning 2 sets at love. Oh Snap!
Agassi v. Ginepri - Even if Agassi does not play Ginepri in a strong American showing, he’s the favorite to get to finals in a draw sans Nadal and Roddick. His main competition is Blake, Coria, and Gasquet. So the question you’ve got to ask yourself is, do you see any of those three beating Andre? Blake I’ve already expressed my opinion on. I don’t think Coria’s clay court style would hold up. Gasquet I could see, but he’s lucky to have made it this far considering his
results. If he actually plays Ginepri, Agassi in 3. Otherwise, Agassi in 4.
Finals
Federer v. Agassi - I was real close to calling Federer/Blake, or even Federer/Coria. The second scenario would be a nightmare because I think Coria might last 70 minutes against Federer on a hard court. Once again, I’ve taken the two top seeds left. While I think Federer and Agassi could both be upset, this is the dream scenario. This is what everyone wants. Everyone would watch this beginning to end.
Do you think the crowd might get behind Agassi a bit? Do you think he’ll be pumped? Do you think he’ll cry if he wins? Do you think Federer would be phased in the least? Do you think Agassi could still win even if Federer wasn’t? Even just a little? Yes. Yes. Yes. No. No. And that’s why they play the match. My powers of prognostication are being hampered by a pool of drool forming on the keyboard. I won’t pick a winner. I don’t want to jinx this final.
posted by mike at 10:07 PM
9 Comments:
How's your apartment at OSU? Also, delete the post above of this one. Also, tennis is gay.
I like the apartment fine, though the desk staff aren't friendly at all. Everything is new.
No socks for you!
You could send them to me, as sort of an apartment-warming gift.
Or not.
maybe the desk worker in the neil bldg was upset because nadal lost...
Rachel, I think you're right.
Yeah, I watched quite a bit of tennis last night, because tennis is way more interesting than concavity.
Be prepared for an awesome speel on college football.
John, just don't do your homework.
Michael, buy some new socks. I think it would cost more to ship them to you. Besides, you have all those crappy socks that don't have an upper half.
Yeah, you're probably right. Those socks kind of sucked anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home