Dark horse for the US Open (ATP)?

MCallanan said:
So the operational definition of a dark horse is someone who isn’t a Masters 1000 contender? Given that the world 152nd ranked man just won the most recent Masters 1000 that seems a bit inane. This isn’t the women’s game — there isn’t someone flying completely under the radar who’s going to win the Open; Coric was a previous Masters 1000 Finalist. Even Sebastian Korda, whom many have listed, has been a Masters quarterfinalist and thus a Masters 1000 contender. Fritz has never qualified for the World Tour Finals, he’s never made the semifinals of a Grand Slam, he’s never been a top ten ranked player. Ergo I think he fits the bill of a dark horse quite well.
Click to expand...

I don't think Korda could be considered a contender at the M1000 level, yet. If he makes a QF, that would be a great result for him.

I agree that Coric's ranking was a bit deceiving, but the ATP is not a model of consistency at the moment. Fritz, on the other hand, has won an M1000 this year on hard and reached a quarterfinal at Wimbledon (different surface, but still a Slam).


There are favorites, there are dark horses (and surprises), and there are players who are contenders. No, Fritz is not a favorite, but he is not a dark horse either. Maybe over on TC he is, but remember they have to list the names of players people have heard of before.
 
Aabye5 said:
I don't think Korda could be considered a contender at the M1000 level, yet. If he makes a QF, that would be a great result for him.

I agree that Coric's ranking was a bit deceiving, but the ATP is not a model of consistency at the moment. Fritz, on the other hand, has won an M1000 this year on hard and reached a quarterfinal at Wimbledon (different surface, but still a Slam).


There are favorites, there are dark horses (and surprises), and there are players who are contenders. No, Fritz is not a favorite, but he is not a dark horse either. Maybe over on TC he is, but remember they have to list the names of players people have heard of before.
Click to expand...

So would Karen Khachanov be considered a dark horse? He’s obviously having a poor season but he’s a more accomplished player than Fritz.
 
Aabye5 said:
Yes, but many would pick a top 20 or even top 10 player as a dark horse. This seemed like a good compromise.

If you want players outside the top 50, I would pick:

1. David Goffin
2. Brandon Nakashima
3. Adrian Mannarino
4. Lloyd Harris
5. Mikael Ymer
6. Mackie McDonald
Click to expand...
better, but still not sure, because these names are familiar to even very casual fans, they are ranked just outside the top 50. how about someone lower in the rankings, at least.
 
MCallanan said:
So would Karen Khachanov be considered a dark horse? He’s obviously having a poor season but he’s a more accomplished player than Fritz.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's not just about accomplishments. Even Murray would be a dark horse. Some people prefer to exclude Slam winners, and I understand the argument for that.

But yes, Fritz on form and 2022 accomplishments is a contender for the title. Karen is not.
 
jimmy8 said:
better, but still not sure, because these names are familiar to even very casual fans, they are ranked just outside the top 50. how about someone lower in the rankings, at least.
Click to expand...

Name recognition does not mean you are not a dark horse contender.
 
jimmy8 said:
I never heard of Emma raducanu before 2021 wimbledon. Had you heard about her before 2021 wimbledon?
Click to expand...

No, she was a complete surprise. (Also, her draw was arguably easier than normal) That's not what this thread is about, however. Check the second definition.

If someone picks a Raducanu-type winner in this thread, and it pans out, that's marvelous pick. But that is not the only type of dark horse.
 
Aabye5 said:
No, she was a complete surprise. (Also, her draw was arguably easier than normal) That's not what this thread is about, however. Check the second definition.

If someone picks a Raducanu-type winner in this thread, and it pans out, that's marvelous pick. But that is not the only type of dark horse.
Click to expand...
Ok, I think that's cool because it's too hard to find some no namer that might win.

I disagree about her draw. She beat a lot of people that I thought were sure to beat her, especially the semi-final. My jaw dropped to the ground when I saw that she won that match.
 
Aabye5 said:
Yes, it's not just about accomplishments. Even Murray would be a dark horse. Some people prefer to exclude Slam winners, and I understand the argument for that.

But yes, Fritz on form and 2022 accomplishments is a contender for the title. Karen is not.
Click to expand...


The case for Murray being a dark horse is a clear one though: Since 2017 he’s only won a handful of Grand Slam matches, he hasn’t won a title since 2019 — Challengers included, and at the moment he doesn’t appear to have the conditioning needed to play best two out of three set matches never mind best three out of five. Khachanov is only a year removed from the second biggest accomplishment of his career and as bad as his season has been he did make a final earlier this year.

In my opinion the definition you posted above perfectly exemplifies Taylor Fritz chances, “an entrant in a contest that is judged unlikely to succeed.” I don’t expect Taylor Fritz to succeed in winning this years US Open, I don’t know anyone who does. I wouldn’t even put him in my top five or six players most likely to succeed at the Open. That’s why I look at him as a dark horse.
 
MCallanan said:
The case for Murray being a dark horse is a clear one though: Since 2017 he’s only won a handful of Grand Slam matches, he hasn’t won a title since 2019 — Challengers included, and at the moment he doesn’t appear to have the conditioning needed to play best two out of three set matches never mind best three out of five. Khachanov is only a year removed from the second biggest accomplishment of his career and as bad as his season has been he did make a final earlier this year.

In my opinion the definition you posted above perfectly exemplifies Taylor Fritz chances, “an entrant in a contest that is judged unlikely to succeed.” I don’t expect Taylor Fritz to succeed in winning this years US Open, I don’t know anyone who does. I wouldn’t even put him in my top five or six players most likely to succeed at the Open. That’s why I look at him as a dark horse.
Click to expand...


He made it to a quarterfinal at the last Slam, and he won an M1000 on this surface. He is not a favorite to win it, but he is certainly a contender. Given his trajectory, it would not be a surprise. You always have your first tier and your second tier of contenders.

The big 3 have led to warped expectations, but it is conceivable for Medvedev (and Alcaraz and even Rafa) to fall early. If the favorites fall, which players can capitalize? Taylor is certainly in that second tier, as is PCB. Even Kyrgios is arguably in that tier.
 
1.Carreno-Busta is a very dangerous player in form also , see usopen 2020 the match vs djoker , he will make the quarters
2.FAA lost some tight matches the previous years at usopen , vs medvedev vs thiem , very tight , 7-6 7-6 7-6 a remember them cuz i was betting live
3.berrettini
4. coric
5. Van de Zandschulp
 
puiacalin91 said:
1.Carreno-Busta is a very dangerous player in form also , see usopen 2020 the match vs djoker , he will make the quarters
2.FAA lost some tight matches the previous years at usopen , vs medvedev vs thiem , very tight , 7-6 7-6 7-6 a remember them cuz i was betting live
3.berrettini
4. coric
5. Van de Zandschulp
Click to expand...

Coric and van de Zandschulp are interesting. Botic is in the Fritz section of the draw, and he could cause Taylor some trouble, but I wouldn't bet on it.
 
Aabye5 said:
Coric and van de Zandschulp are interesting. Botic is in the Fritz section of the draw, and he could cause Taylor some trouble, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Click to expand...
Looking at Nadal training with different players at this Usopen , I think he also inderectly picks his own dark horses for the tournament to play against . Fokina, Berrettini , Fritz, might go deep . Who knows... depends on many factors. Busta had the run of his life in Torronto , technically , he is at his peak if you draw a chart of his tennis life , Coric also at his peak , Kyrgios also peaked at Wimbledon. Peaks are very hard to maintain, maybe some other players may peak just in time for this USOPEN , Medvedev may come to surface again , FAA may come back top form , they both had good AO's . It goes up and down , different players peak at different times, only these huge legends of the game maintain at the top without their peak form. Anyone in top 20 who is out of form could lose to an inform top 100 . It is about FORM . So I don't know , if any player in top 100 hits a top form could run all the way to the quarters , semis, even final. There is only Rafa (because sadly Novak is forbbiden to play USO22 , although he played 21 and 20 wich is a joke that he cannot play 22 ) who could stop an inform player from top 50 top 100 even if he is not 100% , others have to make huge huge effort to stop a darkhorse , inform players when they are not at their best.
 
puiacalin91 said:
Looking at Nadal training with different players at this Usopen , I think he also inderectly picks his own dark horses for the tournament to play against . Fokina, Berrettini , Fritz, might go deep . Who knows... depends on many factors. Busta had the run of his life in Torronto , technically , he is at his peak if you draw a chart of his tennis life , Coric also at his peak , Kyrgios also peaked at Wimbledon. Peaks are very hard to maintain, maybe some other players may peak just in time for this USOPEN , Medvedev may come to surface again , FAA may come back top form , they both had good AO's . It goes up and down , different players peak at different times, only these huge legends of the game maintain at the top without their peak form. Anyone in top 20 who is out of form could lose to an inform top 100 . It is about FORM . So I don't know , if any player in top 100 hits a top form could run all the way to the quarters , semis, even final. There is only Rafa (because sadly Novak is forbbiden to play USO22 , although he played 21 and 20 wich is a joke that he cannot play 22 ) who could stop an inform player from top 50 top 100 even if he is not 100% , others have to make huge huge effort to stop a darkhorse , inform players when they are not at their best.
Click to expand...

All of these are contenders for the title, not dark horses. Given how the year has gone, any of them could be holding the trophy by the end of the tournament. They are in-form, which is why they are not really dark horses.

Alejandro Davidovich-Fokina is probably the exception from this list of of players.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Aabye5
Dark horses for the US Open (WTA)?
Replies
20
Views
1K
Tennfan123
T
FreeBird
Top 5 favorites and Dark Horses in your opinion for RG
Replies
28
Views
2K
Wynter
Wynter
J
Playing Styles of Top ATP Players
Replies
10
Views
2K
spottishwood
spottishwood
Aussie Darcy
Your US Open predictions (Champions, dark horses, disappointing players)
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
haqq777
haqq777
OddJack
USO 2010 Men's odds: Name the Dark Horse
Replies
23
Views
2K
Bryan Swartz
B
Back
Top