Beyond the bright lights: A look at the unheralded stars in New York

Joey: I will try and not be the guy who says, “a little bit of everything.” For the most part, both Cilic and Nishikori hit their best form at the best time. Ricky, you and I were in Flushing Meadows to see both of these guys play. Nishikori looked all but out of the tournament after going down two sets to one against Milos Raonic. To come back, win that match, and defeat Wawrinka in five sets was a legendary performance. His four-set win over Djokovic was less impressive to me, because the No. 1 seed was simply not playing well.

On the other side, to be honest, I was not all that impressed by Cilic in his third and fourth-round matches against Kevin Anderson and Gilles Simon, respectively. He struggled specifically against Simon, albeit in tough conditions. However, by the time he recovered for his quarterfinal match against Tomas Berdych, Cilic was a new man. He won three matches in a row without dropping a set. In fact, every set was rather routine. His style of play might not be the most creative or free-flowing, but when he is timing the ball to perfection, he is nearly unbeatable. He plays fairly flat off both sides and with little margin. If he is on, every ball is going to be within a foot of the baseline, giving his opponent nothing to work with. Combine that with a newly-constructed serve and the mental strength he showed in New York, and you have a Grand Slam champion. Steen: I’d say it was because both Cilic and Nishikori were on fire, and because Federer and Djokovic underwhelmed in the semifinals. Both Cilic and Nishikori were widely recognized for their potential as younger players. Nishikori always had the potential to be a big star, but injuries and general fragility had slowed down some of the hype around him, while Cilic was considered a choker who did not play well in big matches. The four-month doping ban in 2013 also took him off the radar. For those who watched tennis all season long, they would know both Cilic and Nishikori are vastly improved this season and have been playing well and with purpose. Cilic has beaten most everyone on tour except for the Big 4 on a consistent basis and most of his tournament runs were snapped by one of those top players, often in final sets. Nishikori has been injured but he was one of the top players early in the year and Michael Chang has really helped his charge’s game. The Japanese star should have beaten Nadal for what would have been his first Masters title in Madrid. The point of what I’m saying is, if things had broken just slightly differently early in he season, we would have been talking about Nishikori and Cilic as serious contenders along with Wawrinka, as opposed to pure underdogs.

Ricky: All of the proverbial second-tier guys talk about Wawrinka’s triumph in Australian opening a door, but I’m not really buying it–at least not in terms of directly leading to Cilic’s U.S. Open title and future major titles for the other Marin Cilics of the world. Stan apologists will always defend his win Down Under, but it’s obvious Nadal would have won that final if he had been anywhere close to 100 percent. Just look at the previous head-to-head history. Or just re-watch the match. That may have given guys like Cilic and Nishikori some belief, but nothing instilled confidence quite like the current state of the men’s tour. Nadal is gone, so too is Juan Martin Del Potro, Djokovic has been slumping, Murray isn’t all the way back yet, and Federer is a 33-year-old who has not won a Grand Slam since the summer of 2012. The door was wide open (as Jo-Wilfried Tsonga showed in Toronto) and Cilic walked through it. It is very true that Cilic–in the second week, as Joey noted–played tennis worthy of earning a slam title, but don’t expect to see majors won by non-Big 4 players become commonplace unless the relative malaise of the very top players continues. And I don’t expect it to continue for much longer. Alright, onto our traditional opening segment: let’s have one player who flew under the radar to either impress and/or overachieve in Flushing Meadows.

Steen: I’m going to go with Monfils, who got plenty of attention during the tournament but deserves even more. He very nearly booked a spot in the semifinals, and would have if Federer had not saved those match points. The Frenchman has had a strong, albeit somewhat inconsistent season overall, and he’s normally an underachiever but he at least played up to par by reaching the quarters. This was his best slam showing for him outside the French Open, as he scored quality confident wins over top 15 players Richard Gasquet and Grigor Dimitrov en route. He’s a joy to watch, great for the sport, and hopefully can keep bettering himself on the biggest stages so we can see more of him in the second week of slams. That would be of huge benefit for the ATP.

Monfils’ jumping forehand vs. Alejandro Gonzalez: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pq3c9jO108]

Ricky: I’m going to go with John Isner’s arch-nemesis Philipp Kohlschreiber. Interestingly, he is actually not a true nemesis of Isner–just only in New York. The 6’10” American still leads the head-to-head series 4-3 but has now lost to Kohlschreiber three consecutive years in the third round of the U.S. Open: 6-4, 3-6, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4 in 2012, 6-4, 3-6, 7-5, 7-6(5) in 2013, and 7-6(4), 4-6, 7-6(2), 7-6(4) this time around. Nobody other than Tomas Berdych can return Isner’s serve quite like the German, who never broke (mainly because he was 0 for 5 on break points) but was returning so well that even Isner–once a master of tiebreakers–probably thought he was going to lose heading into each of the three ‘breakers. Not surprisingly, Isner did just that. Kohlschreiber prevailed despite seeing 42 aces whiz past him and despite Isner blasting 77 winners to just 38 unforced errors. The No. 22 seed finished with 55 winners to a mere 28 errors. Kohlschreiber is never going to win a slam, but a la Tommy Robredo, he is going to be in the second week of majors from now until the end of time.

He was also a set point away from making things real interesting against Djokovic in the fourth round: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDldIlIEK_o]

Joey: Are there many players more truly professional than Kohlschreiber? Few come to mind. For my under the radar player, I’ll go with Italian Simone Bolelli. Over the last few months, Bolelli has played extremely solid, which is not something we’re used to saying about him. It was only a few years back that many in the sport were calling for Bolelli to be the highest-ranked Italian. He is extremely talented (I’ll claim even more talented than Fabio Fognini) and possesses one of the biggest forehands on tour. Up until this year, though, Bolelli had been wildly underwhelming. His fitness and commitment to winning have been questioned in the past, but this year he may have finally turned the corner. In the first round of the U.S. Open, Bolelli pulled off a solid upset over Vasek Pospisil, who had been playing very well on the North American hard courts. Perhaps the most impressive thing was Bolelli overcoming the disappointment of losing the fourth set, and rallying to win in five. His stay in New York only lasted two more days, but his second-round match with Robredo was fantastic. I logged that match and Bolelli played unreal for the first three sets. Robredo has had an incredible summer of his own, yet Bolelli was the one with the match on his racket. A controversial call at 4-5 in the third turned the match, as Robredo went on win in five sets. Still, Bolelli is somebody we should watch closely for the rest of 2014.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4tnN8vW73A]

Ricky: Speaking of Isner-Kohlschreiber, that ended the host nation’s hopes in New York and once again entirely eliminated American men prior to the fourth round of the U.S. Open (second straight year). I don’t think there is anything good to say about the USA contingent (even Jared Donaldson fell early in juniors and Francis Tiafoe lost his semifinal from two match points up), so perhaps we should turn this into a short Davis Cup discussion? Sam Querrey is the choice for the No. 2 singles spot this weekend in Chicago. Based in part on what you saw in NYC and/or throughout the summer from Querrey, Steve Johnson, and Jack Sock, was this the right pick?

Joey: In a word, no. Querrey played very well in defeating Guillermo Garcia-Lopez in New York, but he was destroyed by a slumping Novak Djokovic. His performance against James Ward in February will never be forgotten. My pick would be Steve Johnson, who is not only playing the best tennis of career, but is also a proven competitor in team competition. He may be the most successful college tennis player of all time, and thrives when he has a team rallying around him. Sock, talent wise, should be our second best player, but still seems mentally hampered in big moments. Anyhow, the US should be fine against Slovakia.

Steen: I would have gone for Johnson, as well. He’s been the most consistently improved while Querrey is an underachiever who doesn’t have belief against players he doesn’t think he’s good enough to beat. Johnson has the opposite of a crisis of confidence, and though his game and style of play has its limitations, he’s a hard worker who is trying to maximize his potential and it’s showed with his results. There is no shame in losing to big players like Raonic and even though the U.S. squad behind Isner is weak right now, he’s the best of the bunch, especially on a hard-court surface. Sock, even though he has his fitness and focus issues, also still has more potential than Querrey at this point in their careers, especially given that American tennis is stuck in a rut and needs to focus on the future. It’s also worth noting Johnson has experience of team-based formats from four years of college, which is something Sock does not have. If the Bryans were not playing doubles for Team USA, Sock–as a superior doubles player–would be worth plugging in. But purely for singles, I would go with Johnson. Ricky: I’m also on the Johnson bandwagon as my first choice and Sock second, mostly based on current form. Also, the Americans should be able to beat Slovakia blindfolded and it would have been nice for an up-and-comer like Johnson or Sock to get some experience. That being said, you can never take anything for granted in Davis Cup (see the USA’s near-collapse against Brazil in 2013)–especially not when you are a nation that is mediocre at best. I will admit that there are arguments–good ones–for Querrey. He is a Davis Cup veteran (12 career rubbers) and if he isn’t eager to make amends for this year’s World Group first-round loss to Great Britain, well then he has serious problems. Querrey also made routine work of Johnson in Winston-Salem and he played his best match of the year against Garcia-Lopez in the second round of the U.S. Open before bowing out to Djokovic.

Sock was sort of deprived of his chance to be one of the breakout young stars of the U.S. Open. A calf problem proved to be his undoing in a first-round retirement against Pablo Andujar. Of course, he would have had to play Nishikori in the second round, certainly a tougher proposition that what it seemed like when the draw came out. Among those who were able to capitalize were Nick Kyrgios, Dominic Thiem, David Goffin, and Borna Coric. We all know what Kyrgios did because he swagged his way to the third round and got night-session billing against Robredo, a clash that provided sheer entertainment. But what about Thiem, Goffin, and Coric? They impressed, no?

Steen: Coric is certainly a big talent, though I think his game may be a better fit to have his best results on clay. He’s just 17 and he’s not the most physically imposing, but he’s gotten himself in the top 180 now and he beat top 30 player Lukas Rosol after qualifying to get into the main draw. The loss against Victor Estrella Burgos showed  he isn’t quite ready for prime-time yet (unlike Kyrgios and Thiem), but he will certainly be part of the solid contingent of ATP generation next players that are likely to usurp the throne presently held by Federer/Djokovic/Nadal/Murray. Coric plays clean tennis and he’s already made an ATP quarterfinal. He also beat another rising young gun, Stefan Kozlov of the USA, in U.S. Open qualifying.

Joey: Thiem has been the most consistent up-and-comer this year. Not only has he competed well in Grand Slams, but he’s earned his way into countless tournaments through qualifying. Playing those extra matches has given him valuable confidence and rhythm. I wrote about this very subject earlier this year. Thiem had his best career performance in New York, reaching the round of 16 before bowing out to overpowing, fresh Tomas Berdych. The Austrian defeated his best friend on tour, Ernests Gulbis, in the second round in a long five-setter. Gulbis was suffering from what we later found was cramping, while Thiem battled back from two sets to love down. He followed up that physical match with an impressive straight sets victory over Feliciano Lopez. While Lopez was not having his best serving day, Thiem was putting his all court game on full display. His weight of shot is already in the top tier of the game. Once he fills out, matures, and truly understands his court positioning, Thiem will be a mainstay in the top 20, if not top 10.
Ricky: Goffin did not have a dream run in New York like did at the 2012 French Open, but for me he at least did enough to prove his recent 26-match winning streak was no fluke. Yes, most of it came at the Challenger circuit; but Goffin also captured his first ATP title in Kitzbuhel (beat Thiem in the final), qualified in Winston-Salem and reached the quarterfinals, and cruised through two matches at the Open. After easing past fellow Belgian Niels Desein, Goffin utterly destroyed No. 32 seed Joao Sousa 6-4, 6-2, 6-0. Although he ended up losing to Dimitrov, Goffin won the first set 6-0 (a second consecutive bagel for those counting). Dimitrov admitted afterward that the first set was complete out of his hands and there was nothing he could do. It’s clear to see that when Goffin is on, he can beat almost anyone. Now the challenge is to sustain success at the ATP level–especially at slams.

Moved to the Grandstand due to a rain delay on the middle Sunday, having previously been scheduled as the night-session headliner in Arthur Ashe, Dimitrov-Goffin had all the makings of blockbuster match amidst an awesome atmosphere. It did not turn out the way as Dimitrov quickly took complete control, but there were some other early-round matches and moments that delivered the goods. Let’s talk about just a few of them.

Joey: Let’s give some love to Estrella Burgos, who made his first U.S. Open main-draw appearance at 34 years old. In the last five or so years, the tennis world has talked extensively about players competing and performing their best as they get older. The story for Estrella Burgos is even better than that, because he grinded his way through the Challenger tour, receiving help from nobody throughout his whole career. The pride of Dominican Republic tennis has suddenly earned a career-high ranking of 69th in the world after a great week at the U.S. Open. The crowd support he had was incredible, and even though he lost his third-round match against Raonic, the fans were rocking on the Grandstand. He was even interviewed on court after a straight-set loss. That should tell you all you need to know about Estrella Burgos’ magical run.
Steen: For an unheralded moment, I’ll go with Frank Dancevic losing yet another five-set slam match–this time to Joao Sousa in round one. Dancevic fought back in the fourth set to force a fifth, but after losing a final-set tiebreaker he was having to hold back tears. The Canadian has struggled with injuries throughout his career and as a result has never really lived up to his potential. The loss is his third at a slam in five sets and you could tell what a toll it took on him after very nearly coming back. As for match, the non-tv court contest between Gilles Muller and Paul-Henri Mathieu was awesome for four out of five sets. Muller hit 38 aces and was up two sets to one with a rowdy crowd behind him, including many Luxembourg-ish fans. Mathieu fought back, won a fourth-set tiebreaker 7-5, and then Muller ran out of energy and PHM won the final set 6-1. Muller has had a good comeback year and PHM, even at his age and in declining form, is always a battler in best-of-five matches. The style contrast was interesting and the three tiebreaks they played were all close. With the exception of the fifth set, each player won at least five games in every set.

Ricky:  The Bryan Brothers got some pub (relatively speaking, by doubles’ standards) because their U.S. Open title was career title No. 100. But it really can’t be talked about enough, what Bob and Mike have done. Their 16 Grand Slam titles as a team is also an all-time record. Want a comparison to see just how good these guys are and have been? 41-year-old doubles legend Leander Paes would have to win 47 more titles (without the Bryans winning any) to match Bob’s 100 and and 49 more to reach Mike’s 102. As for this year’s final, most diehard tennis fans probably saw Marcel Granollers’ shot either live or circulating the internet after the match. But even if you’ve seen it, it cannot be seen too many times. Shot of the tournament. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dglp3_6VpuI]