A look at Top 3s high profile wins at Uso:

[aditya123]

Lets look into the Top 3s high profile wins at Uso. In my view a player fit into high profile if they were a past finalist or either a future finalist at Uso or the present finalsist at a particular open at Uso. And a gentle reminder here, Berretini jokes wont do here.
Firstly Federer : 14
1) Hewitt 2004
2) Hewitt 2005
3) Agassi 2005
4) Roddick 2006
5) Djokovic 2007
6) Djokovic 2008
7) Murray 2008
8) Djokovic 2009
9) Wawrinka 2015
10) Chang 2002
11) Agassi 2004
12) Roddick 2007
13) Cilic 2011
14) Hewitt 2009

Secondly Nadal : 9
1) Djokovic-10
2) Roddick-11
3) Murray-11
4) Djokovic-13
5) Delpotro- 17
6) Anderson -17
7) Thiem -18
8) Cilic -19
9) Medvedev -19

Lastly Djokovic : 11
1) Roddick -08
2) Federer- 10
3) Federer -11
4) Nadal -11
5) Wawrinka -13
6) Murray - 14
7) Cilic -15
8) Federer -15
9) Nishikori - 18
10) Delpotro-18.
11) Delpotro -07( this is wierd but cant help it)

Please correct me if I missed anything here. Now discuss/ disgust

 

[PilotPete]

The average profile of Nadal's opponents was vera teeny.

 

[aditya123]

The average profile of Nadal's opponents was vera teeny.

Come on now

 

[abmk]

Lets look into the Top 3s high profile wins at Uso. In my view a player fit into high profile if they were a past finalist or either a future finalist at Uso or the present finalsist at a particular open at Uso. And a gentle reminder here, Berretini jokes wont do here.
Firstly Federer : 9
1) Hewitt 2004
2) Hewitt 2005
3) Agassi 2005
4) Roddick 2006
5) Djokovic 2007
6) Djokovic 2008
7) Murray 2008
8) Djokovic 2009
9) Wawrinka 2015

Secondly Nadal : 9
1) Djokovic-10
2) Roddick-11
3) Murray-11
4) Djokovic-13
5) Delpotro- 17
6) Anderson -17
7) Thiem -18
8) Cilic -19
9) Medvedev -19

Lastly Djokovic : 11
1) Roddick -08
2) Federer- 10
3) Federer -11
4) Nadal -11
5) Wawrinka -13
6) Murray - 14
7) Cilic -15
8) Federer -15
9) Nishikori - 18
10) Delpotro-18.
11) Delpotro -07

Please correct me if I missed anything here. Now discuss/ disgust

The criteria is a fail one, but even with that

For Federer:

Add in
Chang USO 02
Agassi USO 04
Roddick USO 07
Hewitt USO 09
Cilic USO 11

 

[aditya123]

The criteria is a good one, but even with that

For Federer:

Add in
Chang USO 02
Agassi USO 04
Roddick USO 07
Hewitt USO 09
Cilic USO 11

Thank you:

 

[aditya123]

So inspite of being absent 3 times, Nadal has quite an impressive no of high profile wins at Uso

 

[ForehandCross]

Lets look into the Top 3s high profile wins at Uso. In my view a player fit into high profile if they were a past finalist or either a future finalist at Uso or the present finalsist at a particular open at Uso. And a gentle reminder here, Berretini jokes wont do here.
Firstly Federer : 14
1) Hewitt 2004
2) Hewitt 2005
3) Agassi 2005
4) Roddick 2006
5) Djokovic 2007
6) Djokovic 2008
7) Murray 2008
8) Djokovic 2009
9) Wawrinka 2015
10) Chang 2002
11) Agassi 2004
12) Roddick 2007
13) Cilic 2011
14) Hewitt 2009

Secondly Nadal : 9
1) Djokovic-10
2) Roddick-11
3) Murray-11
4) Djokovic-13
5) Delpotro- 17
6) Anderson -17
7) Thiem -18
8) Cilic -19
9) Medvedev -19

Lastly Djokovic : 11
1) Roddick -08
2) Federer- 10
3) Federer -11
4) Nadal -11
5) Wawrinka -13
6) Murray - 14
7) Cilic -15
8) Federer -15
9) Nishikori - 18
10) Delpotro-18.
11) Delpotro -07( this is wierd but cant help it)

Please correct me if I missed anything here. Now discuss/ disgust

Thiem is world no. 3. The old man is now no.5.

 

[aditya123]

Thiem is world no. 3. The old man is now no.5.

So?

 

[ForehandCross]

So?

A look at "Top 3s" USO wins

 

[aditya123]

A look at "Top 3s" USO wins

Okay, technically you beat me . Okay I meant to say big 3.

 

[Deleted member 770948]

Medvedev will probably win 7 or 8 US Opens, so he's the most valuable scalp in the world.

 

[aditya123]

Medvedev will probably win 7 or 8 US Opens, so he's the most valuable scalp in the world.

Not happening bro

 

[abmk]

Thank you:

You are welcome.
The criteria still sucks though.

 

[aditya123]

You are welcome.
The criteria still sucks though.

World is vast bro.

 

[abmk]

World is vast bro.

I agree. There's lot to learn. Read and learn now.

So inspite of being absent 3 times, Nadal has quite an impressive no of high profile wins at Uso

Nadal only 7 top 10 wins at USO. Everyone with 3 or more slams at the USO has 5 more than he does atleast. (12 or better). Agassi with 2 USOs has 13 top 10 wins there.
Like I said your criteria is a fail one.

Top Ten
1. Lendl > 18
2. Sampras > 16
3. Federer > 16
4. McEnroe > 15
4. Connors > 15
6. Agassi > 13
7. Djokovic > 12
8. Borg > 8
8. Wawrinka > 8
10. Nadal > 7


Top Five
1. Connors > 9
1. Sampras > 9
1. Federer > 9
4. McEnroe > 8
4. Lendl > 8
6. Agassi > 7
7. Djokovic > 6
8. Borg > 5
8. Wawrinka > 5
10. Kodes | Tanner | Edberg | Nadal | Del Potro | Nishikori | > 4


There's something off with this picture. Can anybody spot what that is?

 

[aditya123]

I agree. There's lot to learn. Read and learn now.



Nadal only 7 top 10 wins at USO. Everyone with 3 or more slams at the USO has 5 more than he does atleast. (12 or better). Agassi with 2 USOs has 13 top 10 wins there.
Like I said your criteria is a fail one.

For me it appears that your criteria is a failed one.( For eg beating a Brugerria or a clay specialist in a Uso is'nt great and highlighting it because they are in top 10 makes no sense to me) Of course you value a top 10 more and I value a finalist more here. I dint say by criteria is the best but then it isn't the worst too.

 

[abmk]

For me it appears that your criteria is a failed one.( For eg beating a Brugerria or a clay specialist in a Uso is'nt great because they are in top 10 makes no sense to me) Of course you value a top 10 more and I value a finalist more here. I dint say by criteria is the best but then it isn't the worst too.

But if they are top 10, you can only meet in QF or better. If that clay specialist is good enough to get to QF .......
No one should say Anderson at USO 17 is a high profile win btw. Agassi's win over Blake in USO 05 and Fed's over him in 06 were high profile for example. Blake played way better in both USOs than Anderson in USO 17.

 

[Deleted member 770948]

2010 = Nadal beat eventual USO Champ Djokovic
2011 = Nadal beat eventual USO Champ Murray
2013 = Nadal beat USO Champ Djokovic
2017 = Nadal beat USO Champ Del Potro
2018 = Nadal beat eventual USO Champ Thiem
2019 = Nadal beat USO Champ Cilic
2019 = Nadal beat most likely eventual USO Champ Medvedev
And would have beaten Federer at the US Open in 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2017, if Federer had bothered to show up.

 

[Towny]

There has to be some nuance here. For example, Chang in 2002 can't seriously be considered a high profile opponent. Or Cilic in 2011 and 2019. Or Del Potro in 2007.

 

[aditya123]

But if they are top 10, you can only meet in QF or better. If that clay specialist is good enough to get to QF .......
No one should say Anderson at USO 17 is a high profile win btw. Agassi's win over Blake in USO 05 and Fed's over him in 06 were high profile for example. Blake played way better in both USOs than Anderson in USO 17.

Still you are picking a failed criteria... Top 10 these , top 10 that.. atleast I picked finalists at Uso.

 

[abmk]

Still you are picking a failed criteria... Top 10 these , top 10 that.. atleast I picked finalists at Uso.

top 10 is by no means a perfect criteria, but way better than just finalist without any other restrictions.

 

[abmk]

2010 = Nadal beat eventual USO Champ Djokovic
2011 = Nadal beat eventual USO Champ Murray
2013 = Nadal beat USO Champ Djokovic
2017 = Nadal beat USO Champ Del Potro
2018 = Nadal beat eventual USO Champ Thiem
2019 = Nadal beat USO Champ Cilic
2019 = Nadal beat most likely eventual USO Champ Medvedev
And would have beaten Federer at the US Open in 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2017, if Federer had bothered to show up.

nadal beat a tired delpo in USO 17
19 Cilic was nowhere near prime form
Federer would have beaten nadal in USO 11 - played djokovic wayyy tougher than nadal did.
Also USO 17 if healthy, given fed went 4-0 vs nadal on HC that year
also nadal would've lost to fed in USO 05-09 had he bothered to show up.

 

[aditya123]

top 10 is by no means a perfect criteria, but way better than just finalist without any other restrictions.

Okay, you have your opinions and I have mine so fine.

nadal beat a tired delpo in USO 17
Federer would have beaten nadal in USO 11 - played djokovic wayyy tougher than nadal did.
Also USO 17 if healthy, given fed went 4-0 vs nadal on HC that year

Fed bet an injured cilic in Wimbledon 17 final!!! And you state polarising opinions abt h2h and could have been potential encounters like Uso 11 & Uso 17. You say Fed was in good form and would have beaten Rafa in Uso 11( inspite of Fed being Rafas bunny at that time except on ihc!!) and you say the opposite now with regard to Uso 17( Fed would have won it because he was 3-0 in hc during that time) . So Fed was losing in one of those according to h2h thing, so sticking to one logic would do good here I guess.

 

[abmk]

Fed bet an injured cilic in Wimbledon 17 final!!! And you state polarising opinions abt h2h and could have been potential encounters like Uso 11 & Uso 17. You say Fed was in good form and would have beaten Rafa in Uso 11( inspite of Fed being Rafas bunny at that time except on ihc!!) and you say the opposite now with regard to Uso 17( Fed would have won it because he was 3-0 in hc during that time) . So Fed was losing in one of those according to h2h thing, so sticking to one logic would do good here I guess.

Fed-Nadal was 1 all on HC in 2011 (nadal winning in Miami 11 and Fed winning in YEC 11)

 

[aditya123]

Fed-Nadal was 1 all on HC in 2011 (nadal winning in Miami 11 and Fed winning in YEC 11)

Before Uso what was h-h??? And I clearly stated Rafa was in Feds mind everywhere except on ihc at that point of time.

 

[MeatTornado]

2010 = Nadal beat eventual USO Champ Djokovic
2011 = Nadal beat eventual USO Champ Murray
2013 = Nadal beat USO Champ Djokovic
2017 = Nadal beat USO Champ Del Potro
2018 = Nadal beat eventual USO Champ Thiem
2019 = Nadal beat USO Champ Cilic
2019 = Nadal beat most likely eventual USO Champ Medvedev
And would have beaten Federer at the US Open in 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2017, if Federer had bothered to show up.

Let's not ignore inevitable USO Champ Matteo Berrettini.

 

[abmk]

Before Uso what was h-h??? And I clearly stated Rafa was in Feds mind everywhere except on ihc at that point of time.

is that why fed beat nadal easily at IW in 12?
A 1 match win for Nadal at Miami 11 doesn't mean much - especially compared to 3 wins fed had vs Nadal in 17 before USO (also got a win after USO)
the matchup aspect makes it closer than the difference in their scores vs Djokovic, but doesn't mean Nadal would win in USO 11. It'd be close IMO, with a slight edge for fed. My response was to that nadal troll Nadalot who was BSing anyways. Hence a stronger response.

 

[aditya123]

is that why fed beat nadal easily at IW in 12?
A 1 match win for Nadal at Miami 11 doesn't mean much - especially compared to 3 wins fed had vs Nadal in 17 before USO (also got a win after USO)
the matchup aspect makes it closer than the difference in their scores vs Djokovic, but doesn't mean Nadal would win in USO 11. It'd be close IMO, with a slight edge for fed. My response was to that nadal troll Nadalot who was BSing anyways. Hence a stronger response.

Am not getting into who dint show up during 05-09 or 10-17 hence I omitted it. Btw who won their Aus-12 sf , could you remind me please??? If 3-0 is more significant than 1-0 advantage then so is wins on hc at slams is more significant than wins on hc at masters. So if Fed had the mental advantage in Uso 17, Nadal def had it in Uso 11( he was lost with Djokovic , thats another point though) .

 

[Druss]

Medvedev will probably win 7 or 8 US Opens, so he's the most valuable scalp in the world.

 

[abmk]

Am not getting into who dint show up during 05-09 or 10-17 hence I omitted it. Btw who won their Aus-12 sf , could you remind me please??? If 3-0 is more significant than 1-0 advantage then wins on hc at slams is more significant than wins on hc at masters. So if Fed had the mental advantage in Uso 17, Nadal def had it in Uso 11( he was lost with Djokovic , thats another point though) .

yeah, Nadal did win AO 12 in a tough 4-setter, but again AO 12 was significantly slower than USO 11. But if was only a matter of head, fed wouldn't have beaten Nadal easily in IW 12.

Like I said:

the matchup aspect makes it closer than the difference in their scores vs Djokovic, but doesn't mean Nadal would win in USO 11. It'd be close IMO, with a slight edge for fed. My response was to that nadal troll Nadalot who was BSing anyways. Hence a stronger response.

 

[aditya123]

Like I said:

the matchup aspect makes it closer than the difference in their scores vs Djokovic, but doesn't mean Nadal would win in USO 11. It'd be close IMO, with a slight edge for fed. My response was to that nadal troll Nadalot who was BSing anyways. Hence a stronger response.

Okay okay . I still feel Nadal would have bet Fed in 11, and so do most of people here. Not arguing here but just putting forward my firm opinion.