US Open SmashTalk: what’s in store for Week 2?

Could the US Open finally get the much-anticipated match-up between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal?

That’s what many of our Tennismash team – Paul Moore, Vivienne Christie, Matt Trollope, Leigh Rogers and Bede Briscomb – hope to see in week two as the US Open continues to unfold in New York. They also give their thoughts on Maria Sharapova’s campaign, which came to an end on Sunday, and what the sport should do with Fabio Fognini.

Agree or disagree with our panel? Have your say on Facebook and Twitter using #SmashTalk.

Was it a good or bad US Open for Maria Sharapova?

Moore: Will she be happy she got beaten in the fourth round by a player that most of the world has never heard of? That’s your answer. Yes, she got to the fourth round, but she beat three players she should be beating – Simona Halep included. Maria believes she is the best player in the world. The best player in the world doesn’t lose in the US Open fourth round.

Christie: There were so many positives: she played, she beat a world No.2 and showed both mental and physical fortitude in progressing to the final 16. Fourth-round loss to Anastasija Sevastova aside, there were many sign that the ‘old’ Maria is back.

RELATED: Sevastova beats Sharapova, into quarters again

Trollope: I’d say overall it was pretty good. She’ll be annoyed that she blew a one-set lead to Sevastova, but the fact Sharapova was in the fourth round to begin with – taking into account her physical woes and lack of match play – was a success. Her first-round blockbuster with Halep was a fabulous spectacle and set the tone for the women’s tournament. Like her or not, it’s good to have her back.

Rogers: How can it be considered bad when a few weeks ago there was doubt whether Maria would even be fit enough to contest qualifying? Leaving New York with a fourth-round appearance and a ranking back inside the top 100 is definitely a positive result for her.

Briscomb: Good. She beat the world No.2 and made the final 16 in her first Grand Slam in 15 months – all in a black dress laced with Swarovski crystals. Masha might not be the villain we deserve, but with the women’s tour so flaky right now and in the absence of Serena, she’s definitely the villain we need.  So whether you love or hate her, one thing is definite: you’ll be watching her. Now excuse me while I get “Yeah, I’m not sure where she is” tattooed on my arm.

If you were responsible for sanctioning Fabio Fognini, what would you do?

Moore: Easy: I would strip him of his prize money (and donate it to an appropriate charity e.g. a women’s hospice) and ban him for the rest of the year. Harsh? Maybe. But by sending a message like that, players at every level – particularly juniors – will get the message that abusing officials is a no-no.

Christie: A serial offender when it comes to the most offensive on-court behaviour, Fognini’s suspension should extend for months – with the understanding that any repeat occurrences would see him kicked off the tour for good.

Trollope: Strip him of his US Open prize money. Fines are paltry in comparison to prize money – Fognini’s first-round cheque was still almost double what he paid in fines, and that’s just in singles alone – so I say make the badly behaved compete for free. Oh, and then slap him with a hefty competitive ban. Can’t play, can’t earn. Lessons might be learned more quickly then.

RELATED: Fognini suspended from US Open

Rogers: Suspending him from the US Open is a strong statement and along with a hefty fine, I think that is a fair punishment. Abusing officials is never okay, but the reality is when players are only getting short/reduced bans for positive drug tests, a suggested Grand Slam ban or longer suspension does not seem just.

Briscomb: If I was the ATP, I would work with the ITF to suspend him for the remainder of the year. It’s not that Fognini was frustrated—I love a good old fashioned Marat Safin racquet smash—but the nature of his remarks was reprehensible. Given the current political climate, and the fact the ATP has taken quite a few Ls over the past few years, I think it’s a great opportunity to draw a line in the sand.

In the decimated bottom half of the men’s draw, who will reach the final?

Moore: With Shapovalov out, I’m rooting for the little man: Diego Schwartzman. If he could do it (and he’s beaten some quality opponents so why not), it would be proof positive that you don’t need to be six foot and built like a brick to be a champion.

Christie: The persistent Sam Querrrey waited 42 Slams to reach a Grand Slam semifinal at Wimbledon. A first final at his home Grand Slam would have seem far-fetched until then but now there’s more a sense of ‘why not?’

DAY 7 WRAP: an unlikely set of men’s quarterfinalists

Trollope: I’m tipping Sam Querrey. He’s gone further in a Slam than anyone in the bottom half – Wimbledon semis this year – and although he next comes up against an equally in-form Kevin Anderson, I think Querrey pips him, just, in weaponry and big-match experience. Here’s hoping he didn’t peak too soon in his fourth-round masterclass against Mischa Zverev.

Rogers: I never thought I’d say this, but it has to be Sam Querrey. The American boasts a 9-6 record against his next opponent Kevin Anderson and has the most big-stage experience of all quarterfinalists.

Briscomb: Do I have to answer? Better question: can we just call off this side of the draw? Is this possible? Would anyone care? …Okay, fine. Sam Querrey.

What are you most looking forward to in Week 2?

Moore: Seeing who comes out of the top half of the men’s draw. All of the seeds (apart from, bizarrely, Thiem) have looked wobbly so far. And while the smart money is on a Roger v Rafa semi, I wouldn’t be surprised if Delpo didn’t mix things up.

Christie: In the year of the comeback, I’d love to see Petra Kvitova and Juan Martin del Potro push further ahead. Both have displayed a heart as big as their power games in their most successful major showings of 2017; such spirit is deserving of more big wins.

RELATED: Kvitova stuns Muguruza to reach quarterfinals

Trollope: A Roger Federer v Rafael Nadal semifinal. It’s hardly creative – actually it’s almost a little clichéd – but I feel their rivalry is lacking one piece of the puzzle: a meeting under lights in New York. The buzz would be incredible and it would be interesting to see how they match up on a quick(ish) hard court. Given we were a point away from this match twice – Federer failed to convert match points in his 2010 and 2011 semifinals against Novak Djokovic, preventing final showdowns with Nadal – I feel the time has come in 2017.

Rogers: How the fascinating storylines in the women’s draw continue to unfold. There are the incredible comeback runs of Sloane Stephens and Petra Kvitova to enjoy. The continued No.1 ranking chase for Elina Svitolina and Karolina Pliskova to follow and then there is Venus Williams closing in on another US Open final appearance – remarkably on the 20th anniversary of her first.

Briscomb: Federer and Nadal. I can’t help but liken their US Open performances so far to Floyd Mayweather’s recent fight against Conor McGregor; they’ve taken some hits, tried some things, felt out the competition – and now they’re ready to flick the switch and close it out. It’s a shame they won’t meet in the finals because they are clearly the two best tennis players on earth right now.