#Smashtalk: the US Open, and beyond

The US Open is done, and we have two new champions – Angelique Kerber and Stan Wawrinka.

Did victory in New York legitimise Kerber’s ascent to world No.1? Does Wawrinka’s win warrant a re-examination of the “Big Four”? And what is to be made of other events at Flushing Meadows, like Gael Monfils’ performance in the semifinals against Djokovic?

Our panel of Viv Christie, Paul Moore, Matt Trollope and Leigh Rogers discuss this, and more, in the latest edition of #SmashTalk.

Do you agree with our views? Have your say on Facebook and Twitter.

Is Kerber the legitimate world No.1?

VC: Of course she is. You don’t hold multiple Grand Slam titles, and a runner-up performance in another, without earning your place at the top of the rankings. In the absence of the natural power that many of her peers possess, Kerber has ascended the hard way: through adapting, improving and, most of all, persevering. Whether she’s the most talented player overall is irrelevant. Angie is the best player currently, and I can’t think of a more deserving world No.1.

PM: Of course she is. I’ve seen some chatter (mainly on social media) about how Serena is still the de facto No.1. But the reality is that right now Angelique Kerber is the best player in women’s tennis. Since January she’s bagged two major titles, an Olympic silver medal, and is almost 1700 points ahead of Serena in the rankings (with a 1-1 H2H against her in 2016). In short, she thoroughly deserves to be where she is.

MT: Absolutely. At the five major tournaments this year – the four Grand Slams and the Olympics – Kerber has reached the final at four. And she’s won two majors in a single season, the first person (aside from Serena) since Justine Henin nine years ago to do so. It’s been a fabulous year for the German and so impressive to see her back up her Australian Open triumph. So many before her have failed to kick on following breakthrough performances, but Kerber has grown even more impressive as the year has unfolded. Her poise under pressure and her body language show she really believes she belongs at the top.

LR: It’s hard to argue otherwise considering she has won two Grand Slam titles and also made the Wimbledon final this year. Novak Djokovic won two Grand Slam titles for the season and his legitimacy is not being questioned. Okay, it’s not fair to compare those two. But looking at the women’s game, no one has matched Kerber’s consistency. Kerber’s biggest rival is Serena Williams, whose ranking points are from only seven tournaments. If Serena had played more, she might still be in the top spot but tennis is not about ‘ifs’. Kerber has been the most consistent performer on the WTA Tour this season and deserves her No.1 rank.

Should we now be talking about the Big Five?

VC: This begs the question of how you measure such an elite club. Until recently, the Big Four was a group that was as neat as it was impressive, given that the world’s top four-ranked men were such dominant major champions. It’s no longer quite so literal, considering Rafael Nadal could conceivably dip in and out of that upper echelon and that the mighty Roger Federer has dropped to No.7. But if you’re basing your “Big” on the number of active players with multiple Grand Slam titles? Then, yes, let’s make it a Big Five. With his US Open victory, Stan Wawrinka deserves to be counted.

PM: No. The reality is that the Big Four hasn’t existed for some time. The Big One? Yes. The Big Two or Three? From time to time. But think about it: when was the last time that Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal were all – as a foursome – consistently dominating everyone else at the same time? We’re talking years. The draws are opening up, and there are six or seven men in the Top 10 (not to mention the likes of Delpo outside of it), who should all be eyeing the Majors and Masters 1000s.

MT: Stan doesn’t think so. But I do. The Swiss has now won as many major titles as Murray – hence the discussion around his inclusion in this group – but the thing lacking from his resume is Masters titles and the week-to-week consistency the Big Four have possessed for the better part of a decade. But I’m not sure that matters much. At the events that really count – the Grand Slams – Stan has proven himself one of the game’s best big-match players. He’s undefeated in Slam finals and has beaten a No.1 in all of those finals. It’s a huge statement. His game and mental strength at the business end of a Grand Slam tournament stack up against the very best in the game.

LR: “The Big 4, I’m really far from them,” Wawrinka said after his US Open victory. With three Grand Slam titles in the past three years, it’s an argument that doesn’t really make sense. During that period, Djokovic has won six, while Murray, Nadal and Cilic have claimed a single Slam and Federer hasn’t added to his record tally. I think the question should be is there really a Big Four anymore? What that quartet has achieved is phenomenal and it is sad to admit that such an incredible era is over, but I think it is. Wawrinka’s consistency is not comparable to those players – but let’s not forget he has beaten Djokovic in three of their past four Grand Slam meetings. He has proved he is the world No.1’s biggest threat right now.

What do you make of Gael Monfils’ tactics against Djokovic in the semifinal?

VC: There’s only one prediction that we ever confidently make about Gael Monfils: that anything can happen. The Frenchman’s unconventional semifinal – where he alternated some devastating flair with puzzling indifference – highlighted that unpredictability but didn’t warrant criticism from John McEnroe and others that Monfils lacked professionalism. If anything the strategy of mixing things up showed Monfils’ awareness that at age 29, he is running out of to maximise his prolific talent. Djokovic admitted that the fluctuating rhythm almost put him off his game. Kudos to 10th seed for trying something different.

PM: I didn’t mind it. Sure, it wasn’t easy to watch at times, but it was a pretty solid tactic. Every time Monfils goes toe to toe with Djokovic and plays a straight game, the Frenchman loses (the head to head is now 13-0). So why not mix things up? Everyone knows that Djokovic is mentally combustible, so if there’s a chance of exploiting that weakness then why not take it?

MT: Irritating and disrespectful. People may love Monfils for his theatrics and entertainment value but I’m more interested in watching a player get the job done on the tennis court instead of stuffing around. Sure, the Frenchman was 0-12 coming into that semi against Djokovic, but he was in the form of his life and hadn’t dropped a set to that point at Flushing Meadows. Why wouldn’t he back himself and just play his game against his vulnerable opponent, without resorting to such “tactics”? The boos cascading down from the stands at Arthur Ashe Stadium were a pretty resounding response to his performance.

LR: It was a bizarre match – but at the same time it’s become customary to expect the unexpected from Monfils. He certainly managed to rattle Djokovic, even if he didn’t get the win. I hope he doesn’t employ such tactics again; they don’t set the best example of future generations and is not the spirit of play that should be encouraged in a Grand Slam semifinal.

What’s next to look forward to now the four majors are done and dusted?

VC: Who will end the year as world No.1? While Novak Djokovic has a healthy hold in the men’s game, top spot on the women’s side could mathematically change sides before season’s end. Neither Angelique Kerber nor Serena Williams have many points to defend for the rest of this season. It’s an interesting gauge of Serena’s motivation: will she elevate her schedule in an effort to reclaim No.1? Or is it time to rest up for another campaign in 2017?

PM: On the women’s side, it will be interesting to see how Kerber goes through the Asian swing. I expect her to stay at No.1 until the end of the year, but I think Serena will be out to prove a point if she gets the chance. On the men’s side, it feels like things are a lot more fluid now. Whereas before Djokovic was pretty much guaranteed the title at every tournament he entered, I think there are a few men with their eyes on the prize. All-in that should make for some interesting stories through the Asian swing.

MT: I always love the race to qualify for the year-end championships. Spots in the elite eight-player fields in Singapore and London remain up for grabs, which heaps importance on performance in the tours’ Asian and European fall swings. There’s plenty to play for, and that should make the remaining action this season quite compelling.

LR: The final weeks of the WTA Tour are going to be very interesting – there are lots of storylines to watch. How will Kerber handle the pressure of being world No.1? Muguruza and Radwanska have a lot of points to defend – how will they perform? Will we see Serena again? And just who will finish in the top 10? I’m expecting a lot of movement before the season ends.