Where would you rank Djokovic now?

[Grgisme]

That's a very very nice list. Well done.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

By that logic, Federer is the Wimbledon GOAT and the USO GOAT. Right?

Yes, of course. Who else? (best of open era more precisely because some players have done better pre-open era).

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Yes, of course. Who else? (best of open era more precisely because some players have done better pre-open era).

Well, I disagree. Connors is the USO GOAT.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Well, I disagree. Connors is the USO GOAT.

Why? More finals?

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Nadal
4. Borg
5. Connors
6. Agassi
7. Lendl
8. McEnroe
9. Djokovic
10. Laver

Would be my overall Open Era only rankings at this point. Djokovic could easily be number 5 by years end only though. Laver`s Grand Slam in 69 is overall worth more than the entire careers of Becker, Edberg, and Wilander btw.

oh come on, Becker with 6 slams, 3 tour finals, 1 WCT and all the other titles not as valuable as Laver's GS in 69?

[veroniquem]

Connors has 7 finals at USO instead of 6 for Fed. It's arguable whether 7 total but non consecutive is a bigger feat than 6 in a row . Regardless, 5 consecutive titles is definitely better than 5 non consecutive ones and titles should supersede finals in terms of records imo. (In terms of finals played, Lendl holds the record at USO- or any slam for that matter- with eight consecutive but of course he won only 3 of them)

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Connors has 7 finals at USO instead of 6 for Fed. It's arguable whether 7 total but non consecutive is a bigger feat than 6 in a row . Regardless, 5 consecutive titles is definitely better than 5 non consecutive ones and titles should supersede finals in terms of records imo. (In terms of finals played, Lendl holds the record at USO with eight)

Well in defense of Connors, who I also believe is the USO GOAT, (correct me if I'm wrong) but didn't he win the USO on clay and HC?

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

Well in defense of Connors, who I also believe is the USO GOAT, (correct me if I'm wrong) but didn't he win the USO on clay and HC?

I don't think that makes a difference. If anything, it makes Fed an even bigger favorite since Connors has only 3 titles in USO as we know it: a hard court slam. Winning it on clay gives Connors the edge over Fed in the clay slams won category. But it lowers his stats on hard court compared to Fed's (and Fed's overall hard court stats are much higher than Connors')

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

I don't think that makes a difference. If anything, it makes Fed an even bigger favorite since Connors has only 3 titles in USO as we know it: a hard court slam. Winning it on clay gives Connors the edge over Fed in the clay slams won category. But it lowers his stats on hard court compared to Fed's (and Fed's overall hard court stats are much higher than Connors')

Fair enough, but I think it shows Connors versatility in winning the USO no matter the conditions. He also has something like 98 wins there, which far surpasses anybody else's record at ANY GS never mind just the USO. It could also be argued that the space of time between wins for Connors shows more longevity than Fed at the USO (although I still think 5 straight is more impressive.)

Anyway, this is all kind of off topic. I would rank Djokovic just below Agassi and McEnroe at this point, and ahead of Becker, Edberg, and Wilander in the open era.

EDIT: Just checked the winning %'s at the USO for Connors and Fed. Turns out I was wrong. Fed has a higher % than Connors.

[Fiji]

Originally Posted by ramos77

1. Lance Armstrong
2. Ben Johnson
3. Novak Djokovic

Ouch, LOL.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

Fair enough, but I think it shows Connors versatility in winning the USO no matter the conditions. He also has something like 98 wins there, which far surpasses anybody else's record at ANY GS never mind just the USO. It could also be argued that the space of time between wins for Connors shows more longevity than Fed at the USO (although I still think 5 straight is more impressive.)

Anyway, this is all kind of off topic. I would rank Djokovic just below Agassi and McEnroe at this point, and ahead of Becker, Edberg, and Wilander in the open era.

EDIT: Just checked the winning %'s at the USO for Connors and Fed. Turns out I was wrong. Fed has a higher % than Connors.

It seems we're all wrong here because Sampras has 5 titles and 3 finals at USO, so if # of titles combined with # of finals determines superiority, then it should be Sampras, not Connors. Regardless, I think 5 consecutive titles is the most impressive feat. But I concede it's arguable.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Why? More finals?

Yes, and longevity.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

It seems we're all wrong here because Sampras has 5 titles and 3 finals at USO, so if # of titles combined with # of finals determines superiority, then it should be Sampras, not Connors. Regardless, I think 5 consecutive titles is the most impressive feat. But I concede it's arguable.

Sampras was fairly inconsistent. Too inconsistent to be the GOAT, I'd say. One additional final compared to Connors doesn't equal Connors's ridiculous consistency and longevity at the event, IMO.

[President]

Originally Posted by ramos77

1. Lance Armstrong
2. Ben Johnson
3. Novak Djokovic

LOL

10lols

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Yes, and longevity.

But Sampras had the longevity as well and he made 1 more final than Connors. With 2 finals (8 instead of 6) in the balance, I would start hesitating between giving precedence to more finals or consecutive titles. But with just 1 final difference , if you 're telling me Connors hung around twice as long as Fed and yet still won the same # of titles, I see it as an argument in favor of Fed, not in favor of Connors (ie Fed dominated his era more than Connors if he scored the same results in more compact time frame/fewer attempts).

[NadalAgassi]

Connors would for sure have 7 U.S Opens had it been on decoturf the 3 years it was on clay. He lost 75 and 77 finals to Orantes and Vilas who would have had no chance of beating him on a fast hard court. I hate calling Connors the U.S Open GOAT as I personaly find the guy a major jerk, and for that reason I ever prefer Federer to him, but I think he has to get the title, atleast in the Open Era. Actually all time it would have to be Tilden though, 7 titles, and I think almost all of those were in a row. Even Connors (or Federer, or Sampras) didnt do that.

[NadalAgassi]

As for Connors vs Lendl in general (not speaking the U.S Open here, but overall) I notice alot having Lendl above Connors. While I can understand that, I dont really agree. Both are 1-2 one way or another in alot of the same type of records, slam finals, I think were in slam semis at one point (Federer probably surpassed that by now), tournament titles in the Open Era. So all the stats Lendl is most praised for, those are also Connors biggest strengths and he matches him. Lendl from 85-87 probably seemed more dominant for 3 a year stretch than Connors ever was. However Connors from 74-76 was really similarily dominant, it just doesnt seem that way since he only won 1 major in 75 and 76 combined, but around then only the U.S Open and Wimbledon were really considered big 4 events, unlike when Lendl was on top. Connors was clearly the #1 in 76, and a toss up with Ashe in 75. Connors in 74 was far more dominant than Lendl was any single year however.

The main thing though is their matches vs each other make it hard for to think Lendl is the better player. Even at 30 and 31 Connors was still winning most of his matches with Lendl, especialy the big meetings. Lendl had to wait until almost 25 to start getting the upper hand on a now 32 year old Connors. Plus Lendl won almost all his majors after McEnroe and Connors declined in a huge way, and Borg was long gone. Connors won his majors in a much tougher era.

[Flash O'Groove]

Connors at the USO:
5 titles, 2 finals, 7 SF, 3 QF. From 1973 to 1991 he missed only once the QF or better.

Sampras:
5 titles, 3 finals, 1SF, 1 QF.

Federer:
5 titles, 1 finals, 2 SF, 1QF. His titles were consecutive.

Lendl:
3 titles, 5 finals, 1 SF, 2 QF. He had the same consistency than Sampras, but struggled to win it.

I would say that Connors is the USOPen Goat by a good margin. He was a factor here for a freakin 20 years! Behind him Sampras and Fed are tied. Fed as the consecutive titles while Sampras has more finals. Fed is not done though. Lendl is not in the discussion, as he couldn't win the last match.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Connors at the USO:
5 titles, 2 finals, 7 SF, 3 QF. From 1973 to 1991 he missed only once the QF or better.

Sampras:
5 titles, 3 finals, 1SF, 1 QF.

Federer:
5 titles, 1 finals, 2 SF, 1QF. His titles were consecutive.

Lendl:
3 titles, 5 finals, 1 SF, 2 QF. He had the same consistency than Sampras, but struggled to win it.

I would say that Connors is the USOPen Goat by a good margin. He was a factor here for a freakin 20 years! Behind him Sampras and Fed are tied. Fed as the consecutive titles while Sampras has more finals. Fed is not done though. Lendl is not in the discussion, as he couldn't win the last match.

Yeah, agreed. I think Sampras and Federer have equally good claims but Federer will surpass him by the time he's done. He'll have to win another USO (or make 2 more finals) to surpass Connors, though.

[Agassifan]

Quite possible he can be in Nadal's tier by the time he is done. Can't catch Fed in total slams, but could encroach into Fed's tier with a calendar slam perhaps.