Men’s tennis final at the US Open

In a surprise to many, Daniil Medvedev easily beat Novak Djokovic 3:0 in the final.  Djokovic really had no chance in the match, as Medvedev even out-Novak Novak: served better, moved better, defended better, and, crucially, out-rallied Novak at the baseline.  Djokovic won at the net, but that was simply due to the fact he realized he couldn’t win elsewhere.  It didn’t make much difference anyway since Djokovic is never a serve and volley guy, and his first serve percentage was not high enough, and his second serves were not fast enough.   

Why was that?  The apparent reason is that Djokovic ran out of gas at the end.  He’d played too many give-one-take-three-set matches at the US Open, and it has been a long and historic year for him.  Sort of like Leylah Fernandez in the Women’s final.  This actually begs a deeper question: if he was only 25, could he have done it?  To dig it deeper, it goes back to the GOAT question: since he or Fed/Nadal obviously never did, and Djokovic almost achieved it only when Fed/Nadal are too old and almost out of the picture, then even if Djokovic did it, how significant is it?

At the moment Fed/Nadal/Djokovic all have unique credentials to be called the GOAT, or GOATs.  In a sense, here lies a debate between a big GOAT or a small GOAT circle, or a big HOF vs small HOF.  The small GOAT mindset is that it is better to leave GOAT designation blank than risking a new GOAT discussion coming up every 10 years. A GOAT must have staying power.

In my Aug 20, 2011 blog there are two objective criteria: overall achievements, and head-to-head records.  Fed/Nadal/Djokovic are all tied up in GS totals now, although Djokovic most likely will end up with the most.  Djokovic also has a winning record against the other two, but the advantage is minimal and reflects more on their age differences than anything else.  In essence, the big 3 are very similar.  Djokovic benefits from being the youngest, with Murray, who was supposed to seriously challenge Djokovic, which he indeed did in 2016, getting hurt after 2017 and faded away.   

The Aug 20, 2011 blog also indicated additional factors, although it is safe to emphasize one for the small GOAT mindset: a real GOAT must be obviously better than everybody else in the GOAT discussion.  Because otherwise we will find new GOAT nonstop.  Like Pete Sampras: everybody marveled at his 14 GS in 2002, but in 10 years that record was blown away by Federer, then it was quickly clear that Nadal and Djokovic would handily surpass it as well. 

Right now, and it is predicted that the big 3 won’t blow away each other eventually.  So if one prefers a small and stringent GOAT circle, it is safe to call them all GOATs, but not anyone as THE GOAT.  Because in 10 years’ time there may come a genius like Federer, but no equivalent of Nadal, then he would easily win 30 GS.  GOAT means all-time, perhaps as we foresee to our best ability at the time, but not by the time we talk about it. 

Women’s tennis at the US Open

It has been a dramatic women’s tennis event throughout at the 2021 US Open.  Even though it was only two sets, the final between Emma Raducanu and Leylah Fernandez was entertaining and lasted ~ 100 min, with plenty of high-quality shots from both players.  Fernandez probably felt tired at the end due to her previous 4 straight 3-setters: too many first-serves into the net, and her forehand didn’t produce wide-angled shots as before.  Amazingly, Raducanu was the one who had played 3 more matches, but she didn’t even lose a single set for the whole tournament.  There was a suspicion that Fernandez might have an edge entering the final because she had been beating opponents with a conventional style like Raducanu, while Fernandez is unique and left-handed.  But at the end her stamina likely fell short, and Raducanu is indeed different.  Raducanu looks and plays like Li Na, hitting strong, flat forehand and backhand groundstrokes.  Like Fernandez, Raducanu plays close to the baselines, so Fernandez couldn’t gain more reaction time like before.  And Raducanu was consistent enough to make fewer errors. 

So what can one make of the future of the two?  Raducanu plays like Li Na, but she is clearly more composed, consistent, and much smarter, which bodes well for her future.  Fernandez plays like a lefty Hingis.  In these days when power is everything, this is not a winning formula. 

On the other hand, predicting female athletes somehow has been a losing cause.  See May 23, Aug 12, and Aug 17, 2012 blogs’ high praise and hope for Li Xuerui, who suffered a knee injury in 2016, came back ~ one year later, and retired a further ~ one year later.  But she had been a disappointment even before 2016.  In her case, the blame was her coaching, probably on Chen Jin.  Li was playing an attacking style in 2012 and looked invincible.  Then after her London win, she morphed into a clearing/rallying player.  But she was never a high-stamina person and couldn’t play that style over three long sets.  By 2015 she was no longer any different from other players.  What a big waste of talent.

Another case is Naomi Osaka (Feb 21, 2021 blog), although her story is not over yet.  She has the potential to be an all-time great, but everything is now up in the air.  In her loss to Fernandez at the Open, she seemed not wanting to move, or play at all.  This is mental.  If she can’t think straight, then no chance more achievements.  Maybe her coaching is to blame, so is herself.