clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
If you state the truth that's not sarcasm.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
I don't think a discussion about the US Open is really the time for Nadal fans to be making fun of Federer's competition.
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
Well, all of Federer, Sampras and Borg obviously dominated Wimbledon much more than Djokovic.
But unlike Nadal at the USO, Djokovic at least somewhat dominated Wimbledon in my eyes. Then again, maybe I'm just biased.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
Federer also faced first time finalists in USO 2007 and 2008 finals, and I don't bash him for that. As if you can't play well in your first slam final. I'm sure Puerta is an absolute mug, as he lost to Nadal who was playing his first slam final in RG 2005.
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
Nadal was semi gifted one slam in his prime (still had to beat prime Djokovic’s to win both).
Fed was gifted multiple slams at 3 different venues.
Nice try though
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
He at least defended the title a couple times, which goes a long way.
I know Nadal had injury problems that may have stopped him from ever doing it, but we can't really give credit for what could have been.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Yes, 5 titles in 9 years is obviously more dominant than 4 titles in 10.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Federer in that event was coming off an injury and clearly playing poorly.
Delpo in that SF vs Nadal completely ran out of gas after the first set. In 2018 he was just poor mentally, not physically.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
That's literally what clayqueen does.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
Why does it matter when exactly do you win your titles? 4 titles are still 4 titles.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
It matters because that's exactly what decides whether you were dominant or not.
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
Delusional Fed fans that are whiney because they are about to be overtaken in slam count.
Nothing new here
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
4 titles in 6 years sounds better.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
Success /= Domination
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yeah, Fed has had great success at the AO, but I'm never going to say he dominated the event.
RS
Bionic Poster
Thread ranking best USO runs?
Well, Federer had only himself to blame for botching the 3rd set TB, when it looked like he should have been coasting to victory. It reminded so much of the 2009 finals
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
4 titles in 6 years sounds better.
It could have been 6 in 9, but something happened.
MuryGOAT
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
Here's a good example, after 2018 Federer and Djokovic both had the same number of Australian Open titles; 6
Novak won 6 in 9 years. Federer won 6 in 15 years, and never more than 2 in a row. Do we really feel comfortable saying he dominated the event the same way Djokovic did?
Novak won 6 in 9 years. Federer won 6 in 15 years, and never more than 2 in a row. Do we really feel comfortable saying he dominated the event the same way Djokovic did?
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
Only one guy in the history of the sport has dominated.
You need atleast 12/16 or 13/17 slam title conversion rate to truly dominate.
You need atleast 12/16 or 13/17 slam title conversion rate to truly dominate.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Domination essentially amounts to locking the tournament from anyone else. When fewer people crack that lock, the player is more dominant. Between Nadal’s US Open runs, Djokovic, Murray, Stan, and Cilic were allowed shots (partly due, unfortunately, to Nadal’s injuries, but that’s the way it is). Fed from 2003-2009 at Wimby was dominant over an extended period of seven years. Only Nadal in 2008 was able to break through the barrier, defeating Fed in five sets. Fed at the US Open from 2004-2008 was also incredibly dominant but over a shorter timespan. Meanwhile Fed wasn’t as dominant at the AO. Maybe you could consider the 2004-2007 era dominant, but it’s a worse dominance and over a shorter period of time than the others, so it doesn’t count as much. On the other hand Djokovic was more dominant at the AO from 2011-2016: only Stan could break through in 2014.
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
Murray and Covid didn't want Djokovic to catch Sampras.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
And Djokovic 5/6 in Australia, personally locking out Federer, Nadal and Murray with only Stan sneaking one in.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I'm glad he botched it. In that kind of form he had no business getting to Nadal.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
I just added that one in.
RS
Bionic Poster
Good no more bait threads from you
ForehandRF
Legend
Imagine if Nadal wins it this year
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
The greatest dominance anyone has displayed is of course Nadal at RG, but second to that is without a doubt Borg’s RG and Wimby runs. Managing to be that dominant at RG from 1974-1981 and Wimby from 1976-1980 with both being on completely different surfaces and at around the same time period is just insane.
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
Then again, this can count as a bait thread.
RS
Bionic Poster
I need to think of a thread idea.
RS
Bionic Poster
I doubt it would go many pages though. It needs to be big 3 related.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Enceladus
Legend
Rather 4 titles in 6 years. This is the period where Novak dominated Wimbledon.
RS
Bionic Poster
People steer clear these days.
Dilexson
Hall of Fame
A clear no.
Novak at Wimbledon would be a better discussion.
Novak at Wimbledon would be a better discussion.
I see what you did there. Lol
Enceladus
Legend
It will be more difficult for him than in the past, because the type of hard surface at the USO has changed and this change is to the disadvantage for Nadal. Deco Turf was slow and had very high bounces of the balls on the standard of HC. Laykold with lower bounces of the balls will not suit Nadal, IMO.Imagine if Nadal wins it this year
Rafa has undoubtedly done very well at the USO, and has achieved the most titles in the last decade.
That said, while I think he certainly was the most successful over the past decade, it doesn't make him the "dominant" player. He's won 4, lost 4 (twice in early rounds), and was absent in 2. Retiring hurt or playing hurt and losing, still counts as a loss. And one can't fairly say that the years he was absent with injury should be somehow disregarded/asterisked, while trying to determine whether he was dominant or not. He couldn't possibly dominate the years he didn't show, it is what it is.
That said, while I think he certainly was the most successful over the past decade, it doesn't make him the "dominant" player. He's won 4, lost 4 (twice in early rounds), and was absent in 2. Retiring hurt or playing hurt and losing, still counts as a loss. And one can't fairly say that the years he was absent with injury should be somehow disregarded/asterisked, while trying to determine whether he was dominant or not. He couldn't possibly dominate the years he didn't show, it is what it is.
Last edited:
ForehandRF
Legend
Beckerserve
Legend
It is immensely satisfying how Nadal silenced his haters with his USO domination. And on current form he is favourite for a 5th title as long as he can stay fit as if it plays like last year it will be tailor made for 35 year old Rafa. This time next year i would not be surprised if it is 22-22-18. AO this year was tailor made for Federer and i think W will be quicker this year.
zvelf
Hall of Fame
Failing to show up = dominating? That's a strange definition of dominating.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Yes, that was already pointed out to me. We can argue semantics but his Wimbledon record didn't jump out at me when I was thinking of the dominant slam runs.
(As mentioned before also, if we include this, we also have to include Mac at the USO)
Enceladus
Legend
But you put two different types of dominance into one category - dominance on one grandslam and dominance on two grandslams at the same time. It's as if you were comparing Nadal's dominance on RG with Laver's CYGS, both successes are extremely impressive, but they are incomparable to each other because different criteria apply to them.
The second most impressive dominance in one grandslam is Serbinator on AO, without of doubt. 9 titles, 100% success in the finals, two hat-tricks.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
It’s about dominance in general at the Slams, not just specifically one Slam or two Slams.
Enceladus
Legend
Did you read the bold words in my message? The two successes are not comparable, different criteria apply to each. Similarly, the 2015-16 Djoker Slam cannot be compared to the Fed's series of 2004-07 seasons with 11 winning grandslams, two too different dominances to compare.
