US Open [Men] 2026 - Grand Slam

[El Dude]

depends on the version of Roger you're talking about. The Roger post 2011? Sure he wasn't able to grind like Rafa and Novak. But before that? He could pretty much match anyone. And he was as fast as anyone. It's odd that folks forget. It just didn't work for him against Rafa and Novak because his shots generally weren't able to penetrate the court at the pace he wanted to hit and maintain consistency. That's why he was forced to change how he played. Holding to the base line, taking shots on the bounce etc. A lot of miles in him at that point. But let's not act like it wasn't enough for everyone else on the tour apart from his trinity brothers. Go back and watch 2004/2005 Federer. He figured out that the way to beat Hewitt wasn't to try to hit him off the court, but just lockdown and out rally him, until he hit a shot that was too short and could be dispatched. I don't think any of the trinity was smarter or had better game IQ than the next. They just had different advantages in different situations. Unfortunately for Roger, they gradually phased out the conditions that were best for him. It's really as simple as that

A good take, overall. I think Roger suffered from arrogance and was a victim of his own success. He was so successful during those peak years that he didn't seem to realize that Rafa and later, Novak, were different animals and that he had to make adjustments to keep up. So he lost a half step, they improved, and he didn't adjust until later.

Furthermore, the age gap is real - especially with Novak. Novak reached a higher level in 2011 at age 23-24 when Roger was 29-30. Even though they both maintained a high level deep into their 30s, that gap mattered. When Roger was 35, Novak was 29. Etc. We never got to see peak Roger vs. peak Novak.

I do think that Rafa and Novak had an edge in mentality. Roger was a great competitor, but Rafa and Novak were monsters. Part of that was due to coming up in Roger's shadow, and what it required of them. Roger's rise was mostly amongst peers; there was no looming shadow of a great in peak form, except for much older Agassi and Sampras. Roger probably would have been a very different player if Sampras had been born in the mid-90s, peaking around 2000.

 

[Federberg]

A good take, overall. I think Roger suffered from arrogance and was a victim of his own success. He was so successful during those peak years that he didn't seem to realize that Rafa and later, Novak, were different animals and that he had to make adjustments to keep up. So he lost a half step, they improved, and he didn't adjust until later.

Furthermore, the age gap is real - especially with Novak. Novak reached a higher level in 2011 at age 23-24 when Roger was 29-30. Even though they both maintained a high level deep into their 30s, that gap mattered. When Roger was 35, Novak was 29. Etc. We never got to see peak Roger vs. peak Novak.

I do think that Rafa and Novak had an edge in mentality. Roger was a great competitor, but Rafa and Novak were monsters. Part of that was due to coming up in Roger's shadow, and what it required of them. Roger's rise was mostly amongst peers; there was no looming shadow of a great in peak form, except for much older Agassi and Sampras. Roger probably would have been a very different player if Sampras had been born in the mid-90s, peaking around 2000.

I can subscribe to this in the main. I've always struggled with his reasons for not changing until much later in his career. Ljubicic had a great take on this. Roger simply didn't have enough time, he was relatively free of injury until that 2016 season. So when was he supposed to make those big changes. At the time I attributed it to partly arrogance, but also pragmatism. Pragmatism because if you're still getting to semi-finals and finals is it arrogance to believe you don't need to make serious changes or are you actually humble because you don't believe you have a god given right to get there? What's clear, to me, is that had he made those changes earlier, the more aggressive back hand, the racquet change... it would probably have had an impact, particularly in his matchups against Rafa off clay. It's not as simple as just doing it. You have to have enough time to adjust mentally to it. I'm conflicted about this. As a Roger fan it pissed me off that he took so long, but I now appreciate the downside more.

The other thing is, if you look at it from a business perspective, if you're still dominating 99% of the field, and you're still fantastically successful, would you change your business model? You're still making super-normal profits. That's a tough tough call!

 

[Murat B.]

Okay just to go off on a tangent why didn't Denis Shapovalov develop more? When he first came I liked his game and everything and he had a lot of on court personality and charisma. Everything wore off eventually. He had a nice and stylish game too. Really liked him. So what exactly happened to him and he stalled?

*He has never figured out the mental side of the game. Still double faults in bulk at crucial points.
*He is not focused or steady. He cannot keep the shape of a rally going . He has to change it up and he makes stupid shot selection mistakes that even rookies do not make.
*He has never used his leftyness to his advantage, either with the serve or the ground strokes.
*He seems to be happy just existing in the tour.

 

[El Dude]

Shapovalov seems like a classic instance of not taking the example of the Big Three to heart. What set them apart from the rest of the tour wasn't just talent or skill, but work ethic. Those three were literally insane. It is also why someone like Marat Safin wasn't an all-time great. He had the talent to be a Becker/Edberg type, but he didn't have the discipline or drive to optimize himself. Shapovalov didn't have Safin's talent, but he could have been more of a Rublev/Fritz, I think, and at least peaked as a regular in the 5-10 range, instead of where he did peak, more in the 10-20 range.

 

[El Dude]

I can subscribe to this in the main. I've always struggled with his reasons for not changing until much later in his career. Ljubicic had a great take on this. Roger simply didn't have enough time, he was relatively free of injury until that 2016 season. So when was he supposed to make those big changes. At the time I attributed it to partly arrogance, but also pragmatism. Pragmatism because if you're still getting to semi-finals and finals is it arrogance to believe you don't need to make serious changes or are you actually humble because you don't believe you have a god given right to get there? What's clear, to me, is that had he made those changes earlier, the more aggressive back hand, the racquet change... it would probably have had an impact, particularly in his matchups against Rafa off clay. It's not as simple as just doing it. You have to have enough time to adjust mentally to it. I'm conflicted about this. As a Roger fan it pissed me off that he took so long, but I now appreciate the downside more.

The other thing is, if you look at it from a business perspective, if you're still dominating 99% of the field, and you're still fantastically successful, would you change your business model? You're still making super-normal profits. That's a tough tough call!

Yeah, I hear you. I think age worked against him, too - relative to those other two. By the time Novak went supernova in 2011, Roger was already 30 and it is a lot harder to make changes at that point.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Speaking of Roger and Rafa.. I know watching silent KK making the semis.. they are kicking themselves because the both of them know with a few months training they could both defeat him at the USO.. feel me?

 

[Federberg]

Yeah, I hear you. I think age worked against him, too - relative to those other two. By the time Novak went supernova in 2011, Roger was already 30 and it is a lot harder to make changes at that point.

Exactly. At that stage he was probably thinking he only had a few years left. The idea of playing into your forties seemed absurd at that time. So why make big changes..

 

[Federberg]

Speaking of Roger and Rafa.. I know watching silent KK making the semis.. they are kicking themselves because the both of them know with a few months training they could both defeat him at the USO.. feel me?

oh I'm pretty sure those two look at 90% of the field and think easy meat! But they're phenomenally wealthy, universally loved. Have lots of interests outside tennis. We're the ones who can't let go. They're good!

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

I kind of wish Roger had held on in the 2019 Wimbledon final. That would have ended the GOAT debate. To me, Roger had the highest peak (2004-07) and the highest floor. Roger, in his old age, was still competitive, and even beating, a prime Nadal and Djokovic.

Nadal and Djokovic, in their old age, had trouble against players like Navone. No version of Roger would have even come close to losing to Navone. You could even see it in the primes of the careers. Federer was consistently there at the end of slams (10 straight finals, 23 straight semis, 36 straight quarters). Nadal and Djokovic were susceptible to upsets.

this year Djokovic beat Sinner.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

For now, at this moment, I am just a little worried about Alcaraz and as to when he will make a proper comeback with full health. I want to see him in good action again.

 

[the AntiPusher]

oh I'm pretty sure those two look at 90% of the field and think easy meat! But they're phenomenally wealthy, universally loved. Have lots of interests outside tennis. We're the ones who can't let go. They're good!

Who ya think Sascha rather face Tiafoe or Sheldon?

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

If we get anywhere near 2020 AO version, Federer easily beats KK. If we get 2021 version, Federer might still win, but it would be a lot closer.

2022 US Open is the last version of Nadal that beats KK. Fall 2022/2023 AO/2024 Nadal loses to KK.

 

[El Dude]

Let's not forget that both Roger's and Rafa's bodies gave out. Roger could barely walk, and Rafa was basically done after Wimbledon of 2022. Rafa tried--and failed--to come back anywhere close to what he'd been. Even if Roger had rested for a full year and come back to health, how long would it have lasted?

Furthermore, it is easy to underestimate how much work it takes to get to top form. Alcaraz has youth on his side, and a young man's healing rate. But Roger or Rafa ~40 would have been a very different matter.

I think we should be happy that we had them as long as we did. Clearly Novak will join them shortly. It will be a sad day when the last of the Trinity is gone.

 

[Federberg]

Who ya think Sascha rather face Tiafoe or Sheldon?

I think Tiafoe. Even though he's actually lost one match against Big Foe and not lost one against Shelton, I honestly think Shelton has a higher upside. And I'm sorry but I can't believe that shovel forehand isn't exploitable!

PS, I think Foe probably has a higher in-match IQ though. And I suspect he would be less phased by the moment in a final..

 

[El Dude]

Tiafoe must be one of the more overrated players on tour. I think I commented on this before, but I think a lot of it has to do with him being American and his big/friendly personality. But he's 28 with 4 titles to his name, none higher than an ATP 500. He's played pretty well at the US Open, reaching three semifinals now, but people talk about him like he's a top 10 guy, when he's only just skimmed the edge of it and only has three years finished in the top 20, his highest year-end being #16. I can't think of any other top 15-30 type who is talked about as frequently.

Ben Shelton is the only American male player to win 2 or more big titles since Andy Roddick. Isner and Fritz won only 1 Masters each. Guys like Fish, Monfils, and Tiafoe have maxed out at ATP 500s.

 

[El Dude]

Anyhow, I didn't have these four being the US Open semifinalists on my bingo card:

 

[mrzz]

Tiafoe must be one of the more overrated players on tour.

Yes. Almost half of the "overrratedness" (if the world did not exist before, it exists now) of Kyrgios and Monfils.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Anyhow, I didn't have these four being the US Open semifinalists on my bingo card:

View attachment 11069

The only one that's really a surprise is KK. Zverev is having a career year, Shelton just defended a Masters, and Tiafoe made a few semifinals at the US Open. I thought it would have been FAA, Tien, or Mensik in the spot that KK is in.

I think it will be Shelton over Zverev in the final, ending the 23-year American men slam drought.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I think Tiafoe. Even though he's actually one match against Big Foe and not lost one against Shelton, I honestly think Shelton has a higher upside. And I'm sorry but I can't believe that shovel forehand isn't exploitable!

PS, I think Foe probably has a higher in-match IQ though. And I suspect he would be less phased by the moment in a final..

Initially I felt that Foe had the higher IQ but Ben executed team Sheldon strategies perfectly against not tournament tough Alcaraz.. I think Ben is in better conditioning and if he is hitting his spots. he is more dangerous than Roddick from the baseline. I have no read on Foe.

 

[El Dude]

The only one that's really a surprise is KK. Zverev is having a career year, Shelton just defended a Masters, and Tiafoe made a few semifinals at the US Open. I thought it would have been FAA, Tien, or Mensik in the spot that KK is in.

I think it will be Shelton over Zverev in the final, ending the 23-year American men slam drought.

None of them, even Khachanov, are individually suprising - but as a group, there's no Sincaraz, no Novak. And some of the more talented "other guys" aren't there - Fils, Jodar, Draper, Rune, etc. Just a weird group, and not very sexy as a Slam SF.