2018 US Open Quarter-final - Rafael Nadal (1) vs Dominic Thiem (9)

[abmk]

I saw the match and Fed was sickeningly bad in that match until he saved the day in the end. That match made me sick to watch. The fact that Fed owned Roddick in slams should clue you in that it was not a great day for him or match.

Federer played pretty well in that match, though definitely not peak level. returning should have been better, but federer's (and Roddick's) level in rallies in that match is quite under-rated.

Your judgement is completely clouded by your Roddick dislike.
I watched the match twice (live and while taking down stats)

Roddick also played Federer close in Wim 04 final and USO 2007 QF (first 2 sets). doesn't mean federer wasn't playing well on those occasions.

 

[World Beater]

thiem showed great heart and fought till the end.

his decision making however makes him too much of a wildcard...he goes for crazy shots and has to redline his game.

 

[Meles]

@Meles One other thing: I think Thiem was very clutch when he was behind (most notably, holding serve from 0-40 at 5-5 in the fifth and the wonderful retrieval on Nadal's serve for 3-3 in the fifth set tiebreak) but not quite as clutch when he was ahead or in a position to move ahead. The most obvious examples were the end of the third set and the stretch from 3-1 to 4-4 in the fourth set. But perhaps of most significance, I didn't agree with the ESPN commentators that Nadal's second serve at 4-5 in the fifth set tiebreak was that wonderful. Thiem missed the return and it really cost him.

There was one Nadal 2nd serve that was quite short and Thiem went after if very aggressively. It was so weak I think it just bounced lower than Thiem expected and turned the return into a much lower percentage shot. No surprise that Nadal's serving might have been a tad conservative in the breaker. Thiem was on fumes in that fifth set so in my view anything he did was just gravy. The fifth set was not high level, because both players were tiring. But given how they play and the energy expended coming into the fifth, it certainly can be appreciated for the drama and other aspects of the game in that context. The match was an absolute baseline slug fest with net play also being a key factor in play.

 

[Meles]

thiem showed great heart and fought till the end.

his decision making however makes him too much of a wildcard...he goes for crazy shots and has to redline his game.

He absolutely had to redline the ground game in this match; Nadal was devastating Thiem from the ground when he played his normal game. Thiem's normal controlled game was on display in the first set when Nadal was just pushing. When you are that aggressive you are going to crash and burn a bit here and there; Thiem did remarkably well when forced to play this way with only a few questionable shots in my mind (clearly going for too much on a low percentage shot.) He kept delivering over and over again and it was amazing.

 

[abmk]

It was good that he finally reached QF at HC Slam after having 4 consecutive 4th Round losses at HC Slams.The last year the loss to Del Po was just brutal.

pretty good work to get to QF , esp. dominating Anderson in the previous match.
But last year's loss to delpo, while brutal ---> he was only in a position to win because delpo was not well...he only recovered towards closing stages of the 2nd set.

 

[helterskelter]

There was one Nadal 2nd serve that was quite short and Thiem went after if very aggressively. It was so weak I think it just bounced lower than Thiem expected and turned the return into a much lower percentage shot. No surprise that Nadal's serving might have been a tad conservative in the breaker. Thiem was on fumes in that fifth set so in my view anything he did was just gravy. The fifth set was not high level, because both players were tiring. But given how they play and the energy expended coming into the fifth, it certainly can be appreciated for the drama and other aspects of the game in that context. The match was an absolute baseline slug fest with net play also being a key factor in play.

I thought Nadal looked more tired than Thiem at the start of the set, although by halfway through they were obviously both tired (and Nadal found a second wind or at least a way to manage his tiredness). You're right about a slug fest: my sense is that Thiem got the better of the slugging, but Nadal got by far the better of the net play, even though he missed a few volleys that one would normally expect him to make.

 

[helterskelter]

pretty good work to get to QF , esp. dominating Anderson in the previous match.
But last year's loss to delpo, while brutal ---> he was only in a position to win because delpo was not well...he only recovered towards closing stages of the 2nd set.

Still, it's always tough to lose a match after winning the opening sets 6-1 6-2. And while Del Potro definitely got a second wind of sorts, that sort of recovery is always fragile. He was still not moving at his best (! - post-2010 injury, his movement is mediocre at the best of times and positively statuesque at the worst) in sets four and five.

 

[abmk]

Still, it's always tough to lose a match after winning the opening sets 6-1 6-2. And while Del Potro definitely got a second wind of sorts, that sort of recovery is always fragile. He was still not moving at his best (! - post-2010 injury, his movement is mediocre at the best of times and positively statuesque at the worst) in sets four and five.

I think it was brutal because the 4th set was so close, with Thiem having 2 MPs.
If not, I don't think it would be that tough/brutal since the biggest reason Thiem was up 2 sets to love was because delpo was not feeling well.

 

[TennisFan3]

Nadal in his press conference after the QF:
"When you give everything you have, win or lose, the personal satisfaction is the same"

Solid philosophical approach to tennis. Internalizing your goals: do your best and be indifferent to the outcome.
Perhaps that is why he has been able to come back from setbacks so often. And why he is mentally strong.

 

[Meles]

Federer played pretty well in that match, though definitely not peak level. returning should have been better, but federer's (and Roddick's) level in rallies in that match is quite under-rated.

Your judgement is completely clouded by your Roddick dislike.
I watched the match twice (live and while taking down stats)

Roddick also played Federer close in Wim 04 final and USO 2007 QF (first 2 sets). doesn't mean federer wasn't playing well on those occasions.

I'm not a fan of servebots. Sorry as great as the Roddick serve is, the rest of his game was average at best once he was forced to change the forehand for consistency and it became much less of a weapon. I loved him at 2003 US Open, but just not the same player once the game changed.

Sorry I'll take this Thiem v Nadal match over any serve dominated affair. I have no issues with S&V play and recently loved the Muchova vs Mugurooza match at this US Open. Muchova was just magical for the match with her all court game. Of course reality is that game is never coming back and only the GOAT can pull it off at a high level.

I like new NextGenner Jarry, but his matches for long stretches can be rather boring affairs. Cilic, Isner, Anderson, Raonic, and the like sometimes are OK with the right opponent, but just do not like their play whatsoever. Delpo and Zedrot at least bring a lot more to the table of interest, but when it becomes pure serving it can get old for stretches of the match.

LOL. I'm trying to enjoy Cilic v Nishikori right now which as been quite a match based on the score line, but wow it just seems like nothing after watching Thiem v Rafa. Cilic choking does not impress me and he's been quite skittish in this match.

 

[Meles]

it was only in response to a BS poster.

Oh yeah. I'm warming up to WE, but given my dislike of the whole weak era subject its been a long road.

 

[abmk]

I'm not a fan of servebots. Sorry as great as the Roddick serve is, the rest of his game was average at best once he was forced to change the forehand for consistency and it became much less of a weapon. I loved him at 2003 US Open, but just not the same player once the game changed.

Sorry I'll take this Thiem v Nadal match over any serve dominated affair. I have no issues with S&V play and recently loved the Muchova vs Mugurooza match at this US Open. Muchova was just magical for the match with her all court game. Of course reality is that game is never coming back and only the GOAT can pull it off at a high level.

I like new NextGenner Jarry, but his matches for long stretches can be rather boring affairs. Cilic, Isner, Anderson, Raonic, and the like sometimes are OK with the right opponent, but just do not like their play whatsoever. Delpo and Zedrot at least bring a lot more to the table of interest, but when it becomes pure serving it can get old for stretches of the match.

LOL. I'm trying to enjoy Cilic v Nishikori right now which as been quite a match based on the score line, but wow it just seems like nothing after watching Thiem v Rafa. Cilic choking does not impress me and he's been quite skittish in this match.

don't care about your preferences when talking about quality.
the rally play in Fed-Roddick was also of pretty good quality.
And with the brilliant level serving, the match was of a pretty high level.

nadal thiem (after set1) was better quality than the current match, no doubt.

 

[helterskelter]

I think it was brutal because the 4th set was so close, with Thiem having 2 MPs.
If not, I don't think it would be that tough/brutal since the biggest reason Thiem was up 2 sets to love was because delpo was not feeling well.

Set five was pretty close too. I agree that, if Del Potro really had made so miraculous a recovery that he'd won all of sets three through five easily - if, say, the final score were 1-6 2-6 6-1 6-2 6-0 - it wouldn't be that tough a loss. But what I was trying to say in my previous post was that I think it's rather unlikely that someone would feel so poorly that they'd lose two sets that easily and then make such a significant and sustained recovery that they'd win three sets following equally easily. Even Gaudio v Coria had a close fifth set (though that was more a case of the winner of sets 1 and 2 collapsing than the loser of sets 1 and 2 recovering).

One other example that didn't quite materialize was the AO 93 final. Both because Courier was playing extremely well (he went from 1-1 to 6-1 6-0 2-0 against Korda in the QF) and because Edberg was carrying a pretty significant injury (he wore a back brace from the 3rd round v Mansdorf onwards and went 4-0 down in set 1 against Sampras in the SF before he warmed up), Courier obliterated Edberg in sets 1 and 2 6-2 6-1. But Edberg then changed up his tactic and started chipping and charging a lot and that, combined with his back loosening up a little as he got warmer, helped him win set 3 6-2. But set 4 was pretty close. If I recall correctly, Edberg pushed Courier pretty hard in his service game at 4-5 in the fourth but couldn't quite level the match. It's been a while since I watched the match though.

 

[JJGUY]

geez, DF coming out again?

 

[JJGUY]

Cilic closed it 6:4, we are going to 5!

 

[abmk]

returns in play vs 1st serve : 71% vs 14%.

Cilic dominant on serve in that set.

 

[abmk]

Set five was pretty close too. I agree that, if Del Potro really had made so miraculous a recovery that he'd won all of sets three through five easily - if, say, the final score were 1-6 2-6 6-1 6-2 6-0 - it wouldn't be that tough a loss. But what I was trying to say in my previous post was that I think it's rather unlikely that someone would feel so poorly that they'd lose two sets that easily and then make such a significant and sustained recover that they'd win three sets following equally easily. Even Gaudio v Coria had a close fifth set (though that was more a case of the winner of sets 1 and 2 collapsing than the loser of sets 1 and 2 recovering).

One other example that didn't quite materialize was the AO 93 final. Both because Courier was playing extremely well (he went from 1-1 to 6-1 6-0 2-0 against Korda in the QF) and because Edberg was carrying a pretty significant injury (he wore a back brace from the 3rd round v Mansdorf onwards and went 4-0 down in set 1 against Sampras in the SF before he warmed up), Courier obliterated Edberg in sets 1 and 2 6-2 6-1. But Edberg then changed up his tactic and started chipping and charging a lot and that, combined with his back loosening up a little as he got warmer, helped him win set 3 6-2. But set 4 was pretty close. If I recall correctly, Edberg pushed Courier pretty hard in his service game at 4-5 in the fourth but couldn't quite level the match. It's been a while since I watched the match though.

fair enough.

and obviously Courier is not Thiem on HC, heh

 

[helterskelter]

fair enough.

and obviously Courier is not Thiem on HC, heh

To date at least, Thiem is quite a way behind Courier at his best on all surfaces. And that was probably the best tournament Courier ever played, although 92 RG is a rival. Both times he dropped only one set all tournament. And, bizarrely, both those two matches ended up 6-2 6-1 2-6 7-5 wins.

Who have you got for this fifth set?

 

[abmk]

To date at least, Thiem is quite a way behind Courier on all surfaces.

Who have you got for this fifth set?

Nishi's record in 5 sets is great. ~75%
Cilic's is good at 28/42 (66.47%), but not as good,

Cilic is playing better now and has the momentum.
Tough to call.

 

[helterskelter]

N.B. @abmk @Moose Malloy As no doubt you both know, between Borg at Roland Garros in 1980 and Federer at the Australian Open in 2007, no man won a Slam without dropping a set. In between, I think that Courier's run at AO 93 must be the second closest to achieving that feat after Federer at WI 06, when he was one game away. Not only was he one set from doing so but he looked very likely to win that set, especially as he'd won sets one and two so easily. I haven't done a thorough record check but here are the others I can think of who lost just one set in the tournament:

- Courier at AO 93 (lost third set of final)
- Courier at RG 92 (lost third set of QF)
- Sampras at WI 94 (lost third set of SF)
- Lendl at RG 86 (lost first set of QF)
- Lendl at UO 87 (lost first set of final)
- Lendl at UO 85 (lost first set of round 4)
- Lendl at UO 86 (lost third set of QF)
- Federer at WI 03 (lost third set of round 3)
- Federer at WI 05 (lost second set of round 3)
- Federer at WI 06 (lost third set of final in tiebreak)


Anyway, who would you vote as closest to winning without dropping a set? Were there any others for whom the one set dropped was the third set of the final?

 

[Daniel Andrade]

This has happened with Nadal more than a few times. I can remember when Gulbis beat Nadal 6-1 in the first set in Rome a few years back. He started out just like Thiem. 100% on all shots, swinging for the lines, everything went in, and Nadal was put back on his heels.

Nadal won the next two sets and took the match.

Afterwards in the press conference, Gulbis was talking about how he was the better player in the match -- but still lost. Complaining about how Nadal started absorbing all his pace, taking pace off the ball, and hitting higher arcing shots to give himself more time. It was probably one of the most classic interviews I've ever seen.

But at the end of the interview, full credit to Gulbis, because I remember him saying, "I don't want to just 'play good'. I want to win. All I know is at the end, he didn't miss... and I missed." He was fully admitting that hitting hard shots, being fearless, and looking awesome doesn't matter. The wins matter. The points matter. Solving problems and finding solutions are what matters.

I don't quite agree at how Gulbis defines being better.
If you look at the total amount of points, well perhaps that makes him better.
However that's not how tennis is played.
A good player can give me 30 free points in the first set, and I know he would then beat me, he just gave me one set odds and even then I'm not good enough to beat him.
What I think, based on how the game is designed, is that it tries to tell us that Nadal gave one set to Gulbis, and still beat him in the end despite the odds.
Somehow I don't think the opposite would happen. Gulbis giving a set to Nadal as a 'gift'. And then Nadal losing the match.


That being said, it would be interesting to see how the game would change if it were played to award the match to the player who wins 100 points first.

Would it change significantly in strategy and rankings?

To be honest, my opinion is that most of the same results would still happen.

 

[Meles]

Perhaps something better fight than wimby
Condition better for both of them
But delpo must go for blowing rafa off the court instead of grinding....
That's what thiem did for 1st set and it paid off.. but then in next 4 sets, he went to grind out with the biggest grinder in tennis history and lost horribly

Were you drunk watching this match? Thiem was very patient in the first set because Nadal was stone cold so he dominated. Things changed quickly after that and Thiem was having to hit even harder with virtually no grinding.

 

[Meles]

Only on this forum do people call career chokers "clutch" lol. Maybe look up the definition of the word before you use it incorrectly any further.

you shouldn't say such things about Fed.

 

[Harry_Wild]

Nishikori came through!

 

[abmk]

N.B. @abmk @Moose Malloy As no doubt you both know, between Borg at Roland Garros in 1980 and Federer at the Australian Open in 2007, no man won a Slam without dropping a set. In between, I think that Courier's run at AO 93 must be the second closest to achieving that feat after Federer at WI 06, when he was one game away. Not only was he one set from doing so but he looked very likely to win that set, especially as he'd won sets one and two so easily. I haven't done a thorough record check but here are the others I can think of who lost just one set in the tournament:

- Courier at AO 93 (lost third set of final)
- Courier at RG 92 (lost third set of QF)
- Sampras at WI 94 (lost third set of SF)
- Lendl at RG 86 (lost first set of QF)
- Lendl at UO 87 (lost first set of final)
- Lendl at UO 85 (lost first set of round 4)
- Lendl at UO 86 (lost third set of QF)
- Federer at WI 03 (lost third set of round 3)
- Federer at WI 05 (lost second set of round 3)
- Federer at WI 06 (lost third set of final in tiebreak)


Anyway, who would you vote as closest to winning without dropping a set? Were there any others for whom the one set dropped was the third set of the final?

on top of my head :

Agassi in AO 03
Nadal in RG 2007 (lost 2nd set to Fed in the final)
Nadal in RG 2012 (lost 3rd set to Djoko in the final)
Nadal in RG 2018 (lost 1st set to Schwartz in the QF)
Nadal in USO 2010 (lost 2nd set to Djoko in the final)
Djoko in AO 08 (lost 1st set to Tsonga in the final)
Djoko in AO 11 (lost 2nd set to Dodig in early round match)
Krajicek lost only 1 set in Wim 96
Mac lost only 1 set in Wim 83
Mac lost only 1 set in Wim 84


I know Edberg was dominant in USO 91 -- straight sets vs Chang in 4R, Lendl in semi, Courier in final. not sure how many sets he lost there.

Mac was dominant in USO 79, no ? lost set to Nasty in 2R, I know. dominated connors in SF, gerulaitis in final. not sure how many sets he lost there.

 

[helterskelter]

I had Nadal at RG 07 in my original list - but then I remembered it was after AO 07, so I deleted it. Same with some of the ones in your list. As for the ones in the same time range:

- Agassi's set in AO 03 was the second set of his match with Escude in round 3
- Krajicek lost the second set against Brett Stevens in round 3 (and then beat Stich and Sampras in straight sets back to back)
- McEnroe lost the third set of his first round in 84 in a tiebreak against McNamee. (So unless you discount early round set losses as being close on the grounds of a butterfly effect, that could have a claim for being one of the closest near misses).
- McEnroe lost the first set of his second round in 83 against Segarceanu (of whom I have no recollection! - but I only started following in 86/87).
- Edberg lost two sets at US Open 1991. He actually came into the event really struggling for form, having lost 6-3 6-2 against Lendl in Long Island just before - either one or two days - the tournament began. I think he was still down about the Stich loss at Wimbledon, which was too bad for him because he made the semis without losing a set and was generally playing better than he had in either 88 or 90. But Stich's serve was unplayable. In round 1, he beat Bryan Shelton 6-4 2-6 7-6 6-1, but it was a close-run thing, as at 4-5 in set 3, he was down 0-40 on serve. Round 2, he beat Jeff Tarango 6-3 7-5 6-0. But round 3, he also dropped a set against Jim Grabb (7-6 4-6 6-3 6-4). So, the whole first week was not especially impressive. Round 4 against Chang was a night match and some thought Chang could really push him. Chang had demolished Woodforde in round 1 and Witsken in round 2 (both 6-3 6-0 6-2) and then edged past McEnroe in round 3. But Edberg found his form as the match went on and won 7-6 7-5 6-3. He then cruised through week two: quarter-final v Javier Sanchez was 6-3 6-2 6-3, semi-final against Lendl was easy revenge for Long Island (and Australia) 6-3 6-3 6-4, and final v Courier was 6-2 6-4 6-0. So didn't even go to 5-5 in any set. His 92 US Open run was the reverse: three straight set wins in week 1, three straight five setters in week 2.
- The set against Nastase in 79 was indeed the only one that McEnroe lost. Nastase was 33 by then. But, anyway, it is also out of the date range, because it's before Borg won Roland Garros in 1980.

on top of my head :

Agassi in AO 03
Nadal in RG 2007 (lost 2nd set to Fed in the final)
Nadal in RG 2012 (lost 3rd set to Djoko in the final)
Nadal in RG 2018 (lost 1st set to Schwartz in the QF)
Nadal in USO 2010 (lost 2nd set to Djoko in the final)
Djoko in AO 08 (lost 1st set to Tsonga in the final)
Djoko in AO 11 (lost 2nd set to Dodig in early round match)
Krajicek lost only 1 set in Wim 96 -- that I know, don't remember to whom
Mac lost only 1 set in Wim 83
Mac lost only 1 set in Wim 84

I know Edberg was dominant in USO 91 -- straight sets vs Chang in 4R, Lendl in semi, Courier in final. not sure how many sets he lost there.

Mac was dominant in USO 79, no ? lost set to Nasty in 2R, I know. dominated connors in SF, gerulaitis in final. not sure how many sets he lost there.

 

[Meles]

Thiem can serve in the 140s. Hasn't been doing it that much this year.

New serve motion this year which doesn't gas him as much with better placement. Probably a good exchange for some top end speed.

 

[Red Rick]

New serve motion this year which doesn't gas him as much with better placement. Probably a good exchange for some top end speed.

Losing top end speed is never good.

Spoiler

placement is overrated as hell

 

[CentreCourt]

Sure of course, I would make that 999 out of 1000. but then with RAFA standing there and about to run it down,,,,it is more difficult

If you're a mental weakling who is intimidated or influenced by your opponent, sure.

 

[Meles]

After two sets

Of course it won't last. Thiem will now completely unravel and win 3-4 more games.
...

 

[Meles]

don't care about your preferences when talking about quality.
the rally play in Fed-Roddick was also of pretty good quality.
And with the brilliant level serving, the match was of a pretty high level.

nadal thiem (after set1) was better quality than the current match, no doubt.

Don't tell me you're ticking off winners and UEs once again? Will you grant this is the best match of the year or did that Anderson/Isner Wimby SF match tickle your fancy?

 

[Meles]

Definitely agree with your first point. When a player is raw, their strengths always appear magnified, because they aren't doing enough to guard their weaknesses. Doing that will invariably result in diminishing their strengths somewhat.

Yeah, I've seen his shot selection be worse, but I think that he pulled the trigger too soon sometimes, partly because he didn't trust himself to finish points at net after drawing Nadal out wide.

I don't agree that Nadal was playing well. I think he was well below par, and that Thiem had the edge in most of the rallies. Nadal no doubt picked his moments well and his problem solving and what not were good. But I don't think his groundstrokes are in very good shape. I felt the same about the Khachanov and, to a lesser extent, Basilashvili matches.

Concur on previous matches. Seemed like Nadal was catching a large amount of lines with only a few close misses in this one. We'll soon see with Delpo match. This match should have given him a great tune up.

I suppose I do see your first point on guarding weaknesses. Thiem use to hit even bigger before his racket change after the Miami 2016 match with Djoker. The new racket has more control and less power. The lack of power tends to hurt Thiem off clay in my eyes. I see this in other aspects of his game. Thiem can hit so hard that sometimes its like he's held the turbo button down for too long and burnt himself out. They seem to making a move away for the better from absolutely crushing the ball. Definitely not all upside in my view with the changes and some diminishment.

 

[abmk]

Don't tell me you're ticking off winners and UEs once again? Will you grant this is the best match of the year or did that Anderson/Isner Wimby SF match tickle your fancy?

I'm talking of watching the match properly without bias and taking stats into consideration with the context.

Neither Anderson or Isner can defend/move well on grass.
Fed/Roddick can. (fed even more so obviously)

rallying b/w Anderson/Isner was not very good quality either.

and no, this was not the best match of the year --- not even close. that was djoko-nadal at Wimby.

 

[Deleted member 756486]

Still kinda sad Thiem lost this.

Nadal better go on to win the tournament and make sure Thiem’s death wasn’t in vain.

 

[Meles]

I'm talking of watching the match properly without bias and taking stats into consideration with the context.

Neither Anderson or Isner can defend/move well on grass.
Fed/Roddick can. (fed even more so obviously)

rallying b/w Anderson/Isner was not very good quality either.

and no, this was not the best match of the year --- not even close. that was djoko-nadal at Wimby.

That was a geriatric throwback special. It was pretty good, but Nadal on grass can only be taken so seriously.

Meanwhile in the real world, ESPN keeps going on and on and one about this match any time they have the slightest gap in coverage. They are rating it off the charts pretty much without torturing you with the gory details. 0.0 mention of the Wimby SF. Every single one of their commentators seems to want to get their say on it.

 

[abmk]

That was a geriatric throwback special. It was pretty good, but Nadal on grass can only be taken so seriously.

Meanwhile in the real world, ESPN keeps going on and on and one about this match any time they have the slightest gap in coverage. They are rating it off the charts pretty much without torturing you with the gory details. 0.0 mention of the Wimby SF. Every single one of their commentators seems to want to get their say on it.

geriatric throwback special ? LULZ....ha ha...
nadal's prime level on grass was higher than on any HC >>> but then you wouldn't know since yoy didn't watch tennis before 2015 or so.
Nadal's level in wim SF was MUCH better than in this thiem match. and of course Nole edged him out.

So level-wise, its a no-contest b/w that match and this one.
the Wim SF was MUCH better.

and of course ESPN will talk about USO match since that is what has happened in the current tournament.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Nadal could get bageled. Jeez this could be an embarrassement. A straight set wipe out .

I wish you had been right!

 

[NoleFam]

delete

 

[alex527]

On a much faster court you may add..

That is a good point, didn't think about that. Still impressive though!

 

[Shangri La]

The match was already good enough by Thiem's standards. Had he lost in the 4th, or not made it this close in the 5th, would he have taken as much blame?

 

[clayqueen]

I think players come on with a clear plan to play against Rafa and it works for a while before Rafa adapts and finds the solution.

 

[octobrina10]

Austrian Airlines‏Verified account @_austrian 6h6 hours ago
After an epic match @usopen against @RafaelNadal we were delighted to fly you back from New York to Vienna @ThiemDomi. We hope you enjoyed your flight. You have earned it! #Servus #Bamos

 

[Mike Sams]

thiem showed great heart and fought till the end.

his decision making however makes him too much of a wildcard...he goes for crazy shots and has to redline his game.

Not really redline. He's got amazing ball striking abilities. What we think would be tough for any other player, he can hit almost at will. His 1 handed BH looks so natural. It's like Gasquet's but more powerful.

 

[Mike Sams]

I think players come on with a clear plan to play against Rafa and it works for a while before Rafa adapts and finds the solution.

Nadal is still killing his body in trying to fend off these young players. Thiem just turned 25. Khachanov is 22. And they're both getting better.

 

[I Am Finnish]

Thiem has proved he is more then a clay court player

 

[tennisenthusiast]

Thiem has proved he is more then a clay court player

Nah. Courts were made much slower this year.

 

[Gazelle]

LOL. Thiem lost to Diego and Ferrer in addition to JMDP just last summer and Tsitsipas in Toronto in the summer swing.

Thiem is a good player and will compete just like he often does against Rafa on clay (even if not at Roland Garros). However the idea that Rafa needs clay armor more than Thiem is hilarious.

Say again.

 

[racquetreligion]

Thiem seems to love social media as do alot of these me me kids, its a shame as mentally there is little improvement
since 2 years ago when he went on a tear everywhere.
On the hard courts of Brissy open he was getting mauled by Cilic until he decided to take
the ball earlier in his groundstrokes which went well till the Aussie Open a few weeks later
where he went back to waiting for the ball to lose its energy and hitting it when it was on its way down.
He was lucky Anderson was mentally fatigued as was Nishikori as well after a 5 setter.
No one thats one 5 sets even Nadal could win their next match this year the humidity was also more than past years
Hopefully the final will be a good one alot of people paid for better semis than what transpired.

Thiems coach should take a back seat with the addition of someone to instill more mental fortitude into Thiems game
as Thiem basically throws the kitchen sink into every point and his brains with it. He really should have stood back
against Nadals Serve as Nadal has done to everyone else rather than try to take all of Rafas serve on the rise.
The guy has very powerful groundies with full cuts at the ball and close to the baseline return positioning
equated to many unreturned serves. A real shame Stefanki doesnt come in for the mental side of Thiems game
as physically he is just right for todays homogenated baseline based tennis.