15-15-15-12
- Thread starter USO
- Start date
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
Djokovic and Nadal 9 AOs combined. Djokovic and Nadal 14 FO combined.
fed, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin, Roddick 1 FO combined.
fed, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin, Roddick 1 FO combined.
Last edited:
Beckerserve
Legend
Apparently according to a rookie poster who seems familiar the FO was perfect conditions for Nadal this year. I am sure 4 weeks ago they were perfect for the so called earths mightiest warrior and terrible for Nadal according to that person?The question is why they have been less successful at the USO?
I am the USO so I should know... But I don't.
We misread the conditions apparently. Perhaps we are misreading the numbers you posted?
USO
Banned
I agree about the surprise of Federer not winning it again even though he made several additional finals, he had bad luck in some matches. The USO did create more 1-time champions as you mentioned. But I don't see Nadal winning more USO than Djokovic as an anomaly as he is an excellent all-court champion.
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
15 AO: Djokovic 8, Federer 6, Nadal 1
15 FO: Nadal 13, Federer 1, Djokovic 1
15 W: Federer 8, Djokovic 5, Nadal 2
12 USO: Federer 5, Nadal 4, Djokovic 3
Novak wins 3 more USOs, Fed and Nadal don't win any more Slams, the Big 3 have 20 Slams each, including 15 of each Slam as a group - Talk Tennis melts down trying to sort it all out.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
USO simply lacks a dominator (8+ titles) like the other two. Federer and especially Djokovic have underperformed here. As others said, in 2008 we would all have expected Federer to win a few more, to this point he was equally dominant as in Wimbledon. As for Djokovic, 3 out of 8 is a very bad striking rate and Wawrinka, Murray, Nishikori are not players he should have lost to, let alone the DQ this year. He could easily have three more such that we have 15 here as well.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
This is why Nadal is greater than him at the US Open...
Didn't blow his chances against lesser players and he's beat Novak there in 2 finals.
Nadal also had to withdraw from 2012 and 2014 editions... he would have had a great chance to win at least 1 of those if not both...
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Agree. Novak can only blame himself.
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
If not for the pandemic, the chance of him to won the 2020 edition was not off the charts, either!
Last edited:
demrle
Professional
Hear! Hear! Novak's throat job in 2020, his individual choke job in the final in 2012 (against the fourth member of the big 3) and his joint choke effort with Roger in the semi-finals of 2014. And there's your 15.
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
Of course, these three guys are racket giants.
A little humor doesn't hurt from time to time, right?
Cortana
Legend
Well isn't it obvious? USO is the last grand slam tournament of the year. When you reach SF/F in every tournament, at some point you'll be more exhausted than you can really recover from. That's when you start losing more matches. Giving opportunity to lower ranked players.The question is why they have been less successful at the USO?
I am the USO so I should know... But I don't.
TennisProExpert
Semi-Pro
Fed got a bit unlucky between 09-11 and mugged up too. What they’ve done to that tournament in the 10s decade is a disgrace. Federer would be on 8+ titles there had they kept the surface the same.
TennisProExpert
Semi-Pro
2012 decent chance but 3rd or 4th favourite going in.
2014 slim chance the form he was in second half of that year. Fed would be 50/50, Djokovic clear favourite. How is he going to avoid either when both top 2 seeds made the semi finals?
More realistically, Federer would’ve been genuine favourite in 2016/2017 without injury, and his 2011/2015 runs are as good as anything we’ve seen since 2016.
demrle
Professional
Just throwing that out there as if it were an undisputed fact. Nadal won 4 titles, played 5 finals and 8 semi-finals. Djokovic won 3 titles, played 8 finals and 11 semi-finals. H2H 2-1 Nadal. I would consider Nadal marginally better, if at all.
Come again? No. 49 James Blake, No. 54 Mikhail Youzhny, 15th seed David Ferrer (4th round), 32nd seed Fabio Fognini (3rd round), 24th seed Lucas Pouille (4th round)
What if he had had to withdraw from 2017 and 2018 editions? What is the point of this particular exercise?
Last edited:
demrle
Professional
This. The vultures get to feast on their corpses every couple of years.
demrle
Professional
Djokovic lost 5(!) out of 8 finals there. You know - going the furthest you can go in a tournament without actually winning it 5 times. That's a 37.5% success rate. In finals of other 3 slams he's 14/19 (success rate 73,7%). Wouldn't it hence make the most sense to play the would've/could've/should've game in Djokovic's case? But, again, what would be the point in that?
Incognito
Legend
you mean slow court players like Anderson and DelPo making the finals? Anderson can only serve lol, he can’t do that at AO. USO is still fastest HC major.
demrle
Professional
How was that?
demrle
Professional
Very well observed, I see it the same way. Djokovic could get equal with, if not top, Federer in the number of titles at both USO and Wimbledon. He already left him in the dust at AO, and could even end up with more FO titles. Unlikely that all of this will happen, but absolutely possible.
Last edited:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
What you consider doesn't matter... if nothing changes, the history books will have him as the greater USO player.
Oh yeah, how could I forget baby Nadal losing early rounds or his worst 2 year period since he became a top player...
The obvious stuff shouldn't have to be pointed out... but I guess with people like you it does...
When I said he didn't blow his chances, that obviously implies when he was in a position to win the title as a favourite, having won the title previously and deep in the tournament... Novak in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2019 & 2020 did just that...
Then he wouldn't have won the 2017 title... again the obvious needs to be pointed out to you...
The point is to show that Nadal has won more titles despite less participation.
You're the type of person that needs Google Maps to give you directions to walk around the block...
demrle
Professional
What I consider matters just as much as you saying "This is why Nadal is greater than him at the US Open... ". However much or little that might be.
No they won't. They will have him as the player who won 4 titles, played 5 finals and 8 semi-finals. They will have Djokovic as the player who won 3 titles, played 8 finals and 11 semi-finals. And they will state that Nadal is 2-1 against Djokovic. History books will not (or at least should not) interpret that data. They will, however, leave that to experts such as yourself.
In the same year it lost to James Blake at USO, baby Nadal won its first FO. In the year it won its second FO, baby Nadal lost to Mikhail Youzhny at USO. And in the year it won its third FO, baby Nadal lost to 15th seed David Ferrer at USO.
Obviously, the competition at FO wasn't that strong back then, as a baby was able to win it three years in a row.
Didn't know that we can move the goal posts by picking and choosing which years we want to include and which not. Honest mistake, my bad.
I always wrongfully thought, that you had a chance of winning a tournament as soon as you enter it. I particularly wasn't familiar with the fact, that winning that title previously, puts you in a position to win. Furthermore, it was completely lost on me, that "in history books" losing to a multiple Grand Slam winner in the final of an event counts for s..t compared to losing to Fabio Fognini or Lucas Pouille at that very event. Finally, it came as a complete surprise to me, that, generally speaking, losing deep in a tournament is less desirable than losing early, as it is considered a bigger failure by The_Order.
Having 4 titles and 5 finals out of 15 entries with two retirements is obviously in a league of its own when compared to 3 titles and 8 finals out of 15 entries with one retirement.
Well, we all cannot be geniuses. And besides, my block is huge.
I, however, certainly am not the type of person that would revert to personal insults at the first sign of opposition to my pretentious attitude and try to compensate for the lack of my interpersonal skills by getting louder and more venomous.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
No it doesn't. I stated the facts. 4 titles > 3 and explained the reasons behind it.
4 > 3
Yeah exactly... was only a force at RG and WIM in 07... hadn't won any US Open title so he was nowhere near expected to win...
If you think peak Fed is weak competition, how weak is old Fed at WIM??
There is no shifting goal posts... only facts.
chances =/= realistic chances...
Winning the title previously doesn't make a stronger case for that the player to win again? So proven success means nothing... got it... how's Google maps going for you? made your way around the block yet?
What a load of useless conjecture on your part... never said anything about it being less desirable to go deep than to lose early...
So, despite the fact that Nadal has more titles, Novak is greater because he lost in more finals... got it...
Hmmm... perhaps you should start with your back yard then..
Well good for you.
demrle
Professional
Yes it does.
No you didn't . You just spat out your assessment "This is why Nadal is greater than him at the US Open... ". The part with the titles came later and even that is debatable, since
4 x 2000 + 1 x 1200 < 3 x 2000 + 5 x 1200 (I hope you need not additional explanation here, as obvious is obviously one of your favorite words?)
and it is nowhere written in stone that the number of titles is the only criterion, when assessing success at a particular tournament. Otherwise it would mean, that winning a tournament once and never achieving anything significant again, would be more valuable than e.g. playing ten finals. To give another example, Wawrinka and Federer are by your logic equally accomplished players at RG. That is an utter nonsense in my view, but you reserve the right to continue making non/half-sensical assumptions.
4 x 2000 + 1 x 1200 < 3 x 2000 + 5 x 1200 (and even more so if we go all the way down to QF)
OK, so he was a baby. Oh, no no no, he wasn't a baby. Oh, so he wasn't a baby. Sure, he was a baby. Oh,...
My irony was obviously lost on you here.
Oh, so facts that one has subpar seasons somehow add to one's greatness?
For my money, when it comes to USO and Nadal/Djokovic it is more like
chances == realistic chances...
but hey, to each his own.
Again switching arguments in the middle of the debate. No one has spoken of proven success making a stronger case for one to win. You, however, have spoken of being put in a position to win by virtue of having won the title previously ("...he was in a position to win the title as a favourite, having won the title previously..."). Words have meaning, and I cannot change that fact for you. Obviously.
I never said so, but if you keep insisting... I suggested that their successes at USO were comparable. At the very least, I wouldn't call Nadal "greater" than Djokovic. It might be conceivable to call him "better", but only just (while I discourage any sort of semantic argument about "better" and "greater" being synonyms, as it was just an honest attempt to express a subtle difference strictly for the purpose of this argument).
Could be better. I've been banging my head against a wall for a couple of hours now. Just a very simple wall, definitely made of bricks. But I hope I'll break through. How's joke recycling going for you?
Nah, I got time.
It's not always good for me, but I'm just that nice, I can't help it.
Last edited:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
No, it doesn't... still 4 > 3
4 > 3
huh? Having a panic attack?
You mean you screwed yourself over...
Never even insinuated that...
No one cares about your money, especially the facts.
Obviously, you can't understand plain English...
You keep insinuating, I'll keep insisting...
4 > 3
Hit harder... might knock some sense into yourself.
Cool. So the block it is... go ahead boy..
Well done.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Subway Tennis
Legend
Livelier bounce at the USO, too. The court surface isn't dead like it is at AO.
TennisProExpert
Semi-Pro
Del Potro was there for the taking in straight sets. Should’ve won in 2010/2011 too but kept donating sets with his level dropping, then of course in 2011 imploding after losing the MPs.
demrle
Professional
Come on now, that was really half-assed, you can do better than that. In summary though, I guess there are some things that are too plain to be understood. No one cares about my money, even if I screw myself. I always get a panic attack, when I see two numbers with "<" or ">" written between them. And how ever hard one hits, one'll never knock any sense into a brick.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
I also think this is the reason why Novak hasn’t more USO. He is busy racking up w Wimbledon’s trophies.
Playing RG, going deep there, then Wimbledon shortly after and maybe winning there. Then it’s HC and last year for example he seemed tired and was it some physical problem? Going to finals almost every year in these 3 slams is hard. Harder and harder the older they get.
demrle
Professional
This one's a bit of a reach, but OK
Yeah, but how is that being mugged up?
TennisProExpert
Semi-Pro
Federer stupidly decided to try and out FH Del Potro when all he had to do was use his variety to win in 3/4.
Because he lost 3 very winnable matches in his late prime years.
demrle
Professional
Just a semantic issue then, I guess. Fed mugged himself up there, if that's making any sense.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Because USO is the last slam in the season, when champs sometimes have more injuries, are more exhausted hence USO has a few more unexpected results.15 AO: Djokovic 8, Federer 6, Nadal 1
15 FO: Nadal 13, Federer 1, Djokovic 1
15 W: Federer 8, Djokovic 5, Nadal 2
12 USO: Federer 5, Nadal 4, Djokovic 3
FO used to be THE slam for surprises, almost every second year a debut slam would be won there, until Rafa showed up, set up the Spanish flag and killed all intruders trying to step in.
Similar threads
