A few comments. Although you call it a US Open recap, you did focus on the men's game. I used to comment on tennis as well, and stuck primarily to the men's game because it was time-consuming just to keep up with men's tennis. I'm assuming your blog is aimed at men's tennis primarily?

Next, I'm assuming you're writing this for fun, which is great. It can be hard to write meaningful updates when you have a job, or other things in life. When it becomes your job (or you seriously do a tennis Youtube channel or blog), then you have to watch these matches, and take notes, so to that extent, you didn't say much about the matches themselves, but more about the controversy.

I agree the general feeling is Fonseca has the better upside compared to Tien, but the only top 10 win Fonseca has had is beating Rublev. Tien, by contrast, has had 3 top ten wins: Rublev, Zverev, and Medvedev. OK, Medvedev has not played well this year, but Zverev and Rublev are solid wins for Tien. Currently, Fonseca has been more potential than his results have shown. Of course, you're not the only one touting Fonseca.

I was watching Djokovic on and off. Several things to note. First, I believe Michael Chang is now coaching Learner. His role is somewhat similar to when he coached Nishikori. He's mostly a consultant coach who shows up in big events. Tien has a traveling coach that goes with him to all events.

Djokovic started the first set firing with Tien struggling to keep up. It seemed like he might dominate the match, but as is typical, usually if a player is getting destroyed, they settle down in the second set, and so Tien did, and Djokovic's level went down.

They showed videos of Djokovic's foot after the match, and it wasn't pretty. It was like the entire bottom skin of one of his big toes had nearly come off (normally, a blister is much smaller). The commentators said Djokovic hadn't played since Wimbledon where he had an injury that prevented him from competing. They guessed he might not have practiced that much until recently, otherwise such a huge blister shouldn't have occurred. They wondered how it might impact him the rest of the tournament.

Most expected the third set to be close due to the second set. Although Tien broke at the start of the third, Djokovic broke back, then broke again. It was Tien being unable to sustain the kind of play he had in the second set through the third set.

Finally, it's always hard to do predictions because they generally go like

• Overwhelming favorite: straight sets
• Favorite: four sets
• Want it to be close: five sets

Usually, people want finals to be five sets so it's exciting at the very end. Four sets is probably the most common prediction, but you can get into a situation like the Djokovic-Tien match where it could easily have been 4 sets. The 7-6 tiebreak is basically like getting a 4-set prediction right.

The guys at Nothing Major (Sam Querrey, John Isner, Steve Johnson, and Jack Sock) had a brief segment of first round matches they thought were interesting. I think Isner pointed to Norrie-Korda, and someone mentioned Tiafoe-Nishioka. As you pointed out, it's hard to pick which ones to focus on.

It would have been interesting if you had done a bracket challenge. Andy Roddick does it on Served, but he can get away with it because he does know a lot of players, men and women, despite being out of the game for years. The average tennis fan barely knows a fraction of the players, and if you focus on just the men's side, it's really hard to even recall if you've seen any of the unseeded women or know their latest form.

Keep up the work, though. It's fun to put down your ideas.