On Thursday, August 29th, world No. 3 Carlos Alcaraz entered his second-round match at the US Open as a -10000 moneyline favorite against Botic van de Zandschulp. Alcaraz, who has won each of the last two majors, was also the betting favorite to win the final Grand Slam of the year — and his second career US Open title. But anything can happen in sports, and that’s what makes them so great. Van de Zandschulp ended up coming away with a lopsided 6-1, 7-5, 6-4 win, completely silencing a stunned crowd in Arthur Ashe Stadium.
Van de Zandschulp isn’t some slouch. The Dutchman was ranked as high as No. 22 in the world back in 2022. However, the 28-year-old has dropped to 68th in the rankings, and he has been searching for answers all season. Van de Zandschulp is just 12-19 on the ATP Tour this year, and he has actually dropped down to play quite a few Challenger-level events. Van de Zandschulp was also coming into this US Open after having lost in straight sets to Arthur Cazaux in Winston-Salem, so it’s not like he had much momentum before arriving in Flushing Meadows, New York.
Alcaraz looked uncomfortable from the jump. The Spaniard was broken in his first service game and never seemed to recover. It did look like the 21-year-old was starting to find a little something early in the second set. After being broken to go down 2-1, Alcaraz quickly broke back and then held for 3-2. But that stretch of decent play didn’t last very long, and his opponent never lost his cool. Van de Zandschulp broke Alcaraz late in the second set, and he also survived giving up a one-break lead in the third.
In the end, the Dutchman had a higher first serve percentage, won a much higher percentage of points on his first serve (78% vs. 60%) and also played flawless tennis at the net. Van de Zandschulp was extremely aggressive from the baseline, and he looked to come forward as often as possible. That can be a risky proposition against Alcaraz, who is as good as anyone when it comes to hitting passing shots. But van de Zandschulp won 28 of 35 points at the net, which is good for a ridiculous 80%. On top of that, Alcaraz hit only 21 winners and racked up 27 unforced errors. To say that’s not like the four-time Grand Slam champion would be a huge understatement.
As far as betting upsets go, it doesn’t get much bigger than this. Before the match, you could have bet van de Zandschulp at +2800. You also could have found +105 odds to take van de Zandschulp +9.5 on the game spread, or the Dutchman to win Over 8.5 games at -118 odds. I gave out the latter on the VSiN Pro Picks page. Alcaraz was still about -200 entering the third set, despite facing a two-set deficit. And the Spaniard only dipped to +175 or so when he went down a break in that final set. The oddsmakers knew people would continue hammering Alcaraz.
RELATED: Check out my tennis best bets for Friday’s US Open action!
Oddly enough, the biggest recent upset that comes to mind also featured Alcaraz. The Spaniard lost as a -20000 favorite against Fabian Marozsan in the 2023 Internazionali BNL d’Italia in Rome. But when looking specifically at Grand Slams, this might have been the biggest of all time. Many will argue it was Robin Soderling’s fourth-round win over Rafael Nadal at the French Open in 2009, but the odds don’t back that up. Soderling was an average of +1575 on the moneyline there, according to Odds Warehouse. Van de Zandschulp’s average odds had him at +1833 here.
If we’re going by just average odds at a major, Lukas Rosol’s 6-7 (9), 6-4, 6-4, 2-6, 6-4 win over Nadal at Wimbledon in 2012 might take the cake. The average odds there had Rosol at +2245. However, given Alcaraz’s level heading into this event, combined with van de Zandschulp’s struggles, this one felt different.
Before the match started, van de Zandschulp made some funny comments about the task at hand. He said, “I have to play my best. Hopefully he’s not 100%. You know, I need a little help tonight.”
After the match, it was Alcaraz that needed help finding the right words.
“I don’t know what to say right now,” said the Spaniard. “First of all, he played great. He played really good tennis. I thought he would give me more free points. He didn’t make a lot of the mistakes I thought he was going to make. It was confusing a bit.”
Monumental upsets like these don’t boil down to just one thing. It’s not one player playing poorly or another playing extremely well. It’s a combination of both, and that’s what it took on Thursday. Van de Zandschulp played the match of his life, and Alcaraz turned in one of the worst performances of his. It happens. But it’s remarkable when it does.
