US Open Tennis 2013: Highlighting Must-See Matches of Day 4
The preceding days have offered little in the way of surprises, with the most shocking event so far being inclement weather pushing the proceedings of the tournament itself back.
The only arguable shocker to this point was Jie Zheng unseating Venus Williams, but familiar names such as Andy Murray, the defending champion, have cruised through lower-seeded competition to this point.
Day 4 could hold more in the way of unpredictability as the competition begins to stiffen. Here are the can't-miss matchups of the day.
Where: USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center, Flushing Meadows, N.Y.
When (Day 2): Thursday, Aug. 29, 11 a.m. ET
Watch: ESPN2 and Tennis Channel
Live Stream: Watch ESPN
All info courtesy USOpen.org.
Rogerio Dutra Silva vs. Rafael Nadal (2)
Rafael Nadal is on a roll this year, having seemingly put his knee woes behind him. He has won a career-high nine singles titles, including the French Open and his last two tournaments in Montreal and Cincinnati.
Things have not been so simple over the past two years for Nadal's Day 4 opposition, Brazilian Rogerio Dutra Silva.
Dutra Silva has had a rocky start to his career, going 9-14 with no wins this year. Nadal is at the height of his game, as he further confirmed by a waxing of Ryan Harrison in the first round, and Dutra Silva should provide little competition. ESPN has the impressive numbers for Nadal after defeating Harrison:
Rafael Nadal defeated Ryan Harrison in straight sets to improve to 54-3 this season, including 16-0 on hard courts.— ESPN Stats & Info (@ESPNStatsInfo) August 26, 2013
Still, many said the same thing about Steve Darcis at Wimbledon before Nadal was upset. Don't miss this one regardless.
Prediction: Nadal 6-2, 6-2, 6-1
Serena Williams (1) vs. Galina Voskoboeva
Any match featuring the world No. 1 is one to witness, not only for the display of elite skill but also on the chance an upset could occur.
Fortunately for Serena Williams, fans won't likely be seeing an upset on Day 4 as she looks to win back-to-back U.S. Open titles for the first time, as illustrated by ESPN:
The US Open begins today. Serena Williams is trying to to win consecutive US Opens for the 1st time in her career.— ESPN Stats & Info (@ESPNStatsInfo) August 26, 2013
Williams and Russian star Galina Voskoboeva attempted to do battle on Day 3, but the match was pushed back thanks to storms.
Voskoboeva has had a rocky year at best leading up to the tournament, going 22-15 in singles play and coming in ranked No. 77 in the world. Conversely, Williams has eight singles titles this year and was 60-4 before heading to Flushing Meadows.
These two met in 2012 and Williams cruised to a 6-2, 6-3 victory. Smooth weather provided, Williams should have a similar ride through Day 4 en route to bigger things.
Prediction: Williams 6-3, 6-3
Roger Federer (7) vs. Carlos Berlocq
Roger Federer looks odd as a No. 7 seed, but it's much deserved after a lackluster campaign heading into the tournament that has seen him accumulate a 32-11 record. That's a steep drop for a man who went 71-12 last year.
Federer may be slowly getting his act together after a straight-set victory over Grega Zemlja, and he'll ride that momentum into his Day 4 matchup with world No. 48 Carlos Berlocq—which he let fans know he's been dutifully preparing for via Twitter:
Berlocq has had a tough go of it this year, narrowly scraping together a 22-19 record before the tournament. That trend of just getting by continued in the first round through five sets against Santiago Giraldo—the No. 85-ranked player in singles competition.
There will be no scrapping by Federer for Berlocq. The Swiss five-time U.S. Open champion should make quick work of Berlocq as he continues to build momentum toward what looks to be the early goings of a special run at Flushing Meadows.
Prediction: Federer 6-3, 6-2, 6-2
Follow B/R's Chris Roling on Twitter for more news and analysis @Chris_Roling
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?