Me too Bob he's probably the one talent that can stop Rafa or Roger and has it all for me. Talent, tenacity, entertaining and a true deserving champion. A pity he's not in the bottom half of the draw in many ways.

Spectator wrote:

---

That top half would be a perfectly reasonable Slam SF.

---

 

Yes, true.

But Mark Petchey has a point:

@markpetchey @_markpetchey 18h18 hours ago

All the records from this USO should be banned from going in the official record books.

it has been a joke and brings a whole new meaning to the phrase 'you can only beat who is in front of you'

This is like the 80s Olympics when either USA or Russia did not go and you get people like Sharon Davis claiming to be Olympic Silver Medallists.

This is not like the weak period of the early 00s, when clowns like Clement reached grand slam finals, that was just weak era plain and simple, but this tourn is different, is not a weak era, just 50% of people are injured.

indiana wrote:

---

So accept it, embrace it, as something a bit different. I find it really interesting to see how these various players react to such unexpected opportunity.

The four bottom half quarter finalists are all seeded players, while yes collectively more than half the quarter finalists wouldn't have been expected to be at this stage. But they are the ones who have stepped up to the plate. Yes, one can argue that beating what's in front of them has not been a relative huge deal in some cases. But huge opportunity can intimidate some people while others can continue to perform or even be inspired. All a pretty interesting watch of sport and of men.

The wailing by one or two of the standard of player in these later stages and fairly pantomime overdenigrating of some of them I find very strange. Seems a gross overreaction to what, particularly with the injury non-shows, is to a large extent to date a pretty one-off Slam.

Though unlike the 1980 and 1984 Olympics none of the potential big players was banned from competing. The players that have reached the quarter finals are these that have proved good enough and fit enough in early September 2017 at the US Open. Though that's kind of by the way to it still being interesting whatever.

---

 definitely interesting. The stories / stats for each one make this particularly interesting and on one level no surprises for each person, just a surprise when taken as a whole:

 

Schwartzman - only won 1 match at each of US and Aus Opens before this week, yet won 4 here. And yet the tell tale sign of form was there with his QF appearance in Montreal last month

Carreno-Busta - SF appearance at Indian Wells this season shows he can play on hardcourts

Querrey - won two Mexican hardcourt ATP 250's this year and reached Wimbledon semis.

Anderson - RU in Washington ATP 500, QF in Canada a few weeks back also so good summer form and past QF in US Open

Rublev - if anything he is the one I can see no form in recent months to show how he has come through to the last 8 and yet he is seen to be a real talent. But in this event he has beaten Bedene, Dimitrov, Dzumhur and then Goffin, two of those are top players and show he deserves his place.

 

You can look at each one and say you get how they broke through, but  as a cohort of 5, boy what a shock. And one of them will make a ton of cash and a big name for themselves when they reach the final

 

brendan wrote:

---

if you think it's only 'legitimate' if the best player wins then why bother having the tournament? - just give the trophy to whoever's number 1 at the time

---

 I wasnt sure if this was aimed at me, apologies if not. But if was, you got me wrong. I think the winner is entirely legitimate whoever it is; I was trying to say that by showing all of the 5 outsiders left actually have relevant form if we dig deep enough and clearly are good enough to have got this far. Each one alone is not a shock; all 5 together is! But that isnt too do them down, in fact the opposite.

As I say if you werent having a go at me, apologies. If you were, I would ask you to read what I said again and hopefully you will see we are aligned

    

-- Edited by JonH on Tuesday 5th of September 2017 04:50:04 PM

I kind of feel sorry for Carreno Busta making the semis without having to beat anyone of pedigree. Even if he wins the whole thing it might be seen as hollow.

That was a very poor quarter final though. Wee Diego was knackered but well done to them both anyway, you can only play what's in front of you.

I think it is also criminal that old grand slam records are kept for the old 'clown slams', The Australian open was a joke pre 1994, look at this example from the 1983 australian open

Top 8 seeds (world ranking)

1.Lendl (2)
2.Wilander (4)
3.Nyström (16)
4.Kriek (17)
5.Cash (18)
6.Gerulaitis (19)
7.Mayotte (24)
8.Edberg (26)

This is more like a decent ATP 500.

People that won the Australian open in this era should have it removed from their slam tally. Guillermo Vilas winning more slams than Murray is joke.  If Borg had chosen to play these clown slams of the time, his slam tally would be 20 ish. These silly records as much as stain as old drug cheats records.  useless. 

-- Edited by Vandenburg on Tuesday 5th of September 2017 07:36:57 PM

-- Edited by Vandenburg on Tuesday 5th of September 2017 07:48:43 PM