Plus Djokovic was kinda bad in that final at times and certainly not worth the high rating the system gave him. UTS is fun but it tends to miss out on a lot of context when assessing matches and sets of matches. Murray 2012 is another one that shouldn't be as high as it is. And while Delpo's win was nice, I struggle to see it being placed higher than some of these other runs.
I get that a Djokovic win would have a high rating since his domination was just ending, but he didn't really beat any other great in form players so #2 is way too high. That one and the 1979 McEnroe win as well, when he had a walkover and retirement. I understand the Del Potro one since he beat the two dominant forces in the game at the time who were dominating. I don't have a problem with his or Murray's ranking. Murray had a tough draw at the 2012 USO.
Wawrinka being there but not Federer is extremely weird. Even Murray is debatable, IMO, but I guess it was because of the wind.
Who knows maybe nobody will.
Connors actually might be the fourth best In USOpen. Behind Nole. Yes Pete and Roger are ahead.I think the best USO player is Connors in the OE. Although he lost to mcenroe twice btw(79-81) still he feels the best. Since he won on grass, clay and HC. Lost also twice in the final on clay eventhough it's not red clay, before surface change to HC.
Then either Sampras or Federer. I need to observe as idk.
5 titles seems low to me for a record. I think this record will be broken. Hopefully later one guy wins 7 or so to became clear best at USO
Many people, including Fed, have it.
Federer highest rated USO win is 2005 but it's not close to the top 10. 2 of his AO wins (hardcourt only) are in the top 10 though: 2010 and 2017.
tt.tennis-warehouse.com
ThanksI am sure Nole is really ahead in your mind because he lost to Fed, Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Medvedev ..... it takes great talent to lose to so many people in the final and still be on 2 US opens on 31st birthday .....
Connors and Sampras had the best chance to break/set the record imo, winning 6 or more. Jimbo was unlucky to play during the surface change period which was pretty chaotic, and could only compete on his best court from the age of 26. Him winning consecutive titles at the age of 30 and 31 speaks enough about his abilities to deliver on the surface, which btw rewards his playing style more than any other.I think the best USO player is Connors in the OE. Although he lost to mcenroe twice btw(79-81) still he feels the best. Since he won on grass, clay and HC. Lost also twice in the final on clay eventhough it's not red clay, before surface change to HC.
Then either Sampras or Federer. I need to observe as idk.
5 titles seems low to me for a record. I think this record will be broken. Hopefully later one guy wins 7 or so to became clear best at USO
They beat him and he beat them. All those head to heads at the USO are even except the Nadal one and that's because they didn't play after 2013. In any case, Pete is the best and the rest are debatable in some way or another.I am sure Nole is really ahead in your mind because he lost to Fed, Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Medvedev ..... it takes great talent to lose to so many people in the final and still be on 2 US opens on 31st birthday .....
It doesn’t matter when you win man, as long as you win. I have no idea why you think it does. If anything, it's more impressive to win in your 30s than before considering your body is slowing down. Pete, Jim and Novak all have longevity on their side. All won it across a decade or more and in their 30s. Even Nadal had longevity but not as good as theirs. I don't think Djokovic has an argument as the best there unless he defends this USO. I don't think he has argument unless he defends one or wins 6, but that's me.
Federer was very close too actually. Winning 5 in a row is a massive dominance and losing the 6th against Delpo. Too bad for him though not coming close to win after 2009.
The reason is Djokovic. Stopped him 3 times. At least once he would get it done.
I don’t think it’s really fair to rate Connors the highest when nobody else had to deal with the conditions he had. Difficult to compare.
Didn’t Federer have the best chance since he was the closest to come to 6?
What I don’t get is why Stan’s is rated that high when Fed beat a better Djokovic in 2007 and 2008 and other better opponents. How is this UTS calculated?
Well Djokovic 2016 was a bigger scalp when he was dominating and holding 2 Slams than he was in 2008 and especially 2007. I'm not sure how it's calculated though but he does usually have the formulas somewhere on the site.
I am not talking about Nole being above Pete for now. I am fine with Jimmy also in top 3 but he is not the best. He is far closer to Nole anyway.
Tell me which teenager won a slam. Alcaraz won a slam where Djokovic was banned. He was already not a teenager when he won Wimbledon. And he is only 1 player.
Yes, testosterone levels decrease, the body becomes more fragile, and stamina is less as you age. So it should be more impressive to win then than when younger but your arguments are that it's less impressive. That doesn't make sense to me. Connors won 2 USOs at 30 and 31, so quite impressive, and he started playing Slams at 18. He wasn't a Becker or Wilander who were winning Slams at 17. He was 21 when he won his 1st. He was a freak though and made a USO SF at 39.
Yea another example would be FO 2008, only an idiot would think that this final added anything to Fed's legacy and that it would not have been better to lose earlier. Same as Nadal-Novak AO19. This might be a little different as he finished YE#1, but as long as he does not lose early enough to ruin that, an early loss instead of being humiliated in the final would have been way better.
Same (or even more) with 99. Pete was on fire at Los Angeles, Cincinnati and later at the YEC. No way Agassi beats him at the Open in 99.
Isn't he should get praises for this? His best was HC isn't it? He lost twice in clay conditions won 1. Still share the record. As i know only during 75-78 USO played on clay earlier on grass.
Are there guys who will win slams in teenage rn?
Well, yes, sure, but USO 2016 Djokovic wasn't a bigger scalp than 2007-2008 Djokovic.
Not necessarily because no other players have had a chance to prove themselves in such conditions. Apples to oranges.
That won't give him extra points imho. Imagine Nadal would have had those conditions, he would easily have won more than five and depending on at what time in his career it was on grass also have won it at three different conditions.
True. This is similar to saying Federer had more chance to win on outdoor and indoor hard ATP finals so he is ahead.
I still didn't understand wouldn't it be better had he played on Hard court those years for himself? I don't think he is even close on HC to Clay or Grass. Btw obviously i'm not his fan just going by logic.
The thing is those were not his preferred conditions.
Why this apply to Sampras but when we mention Nadal people just clearly dismiss anything. Due to him being much better on clay why? Also which year other than 99 he didn't play?
Considering how he barely beat Todd Martin, it shouldn't generate any doubt.
He was not bad. In 1974 he got a quite easy draw on grass and in the three years it was on clay he won once and reached two more finals so it is not that he was a mug there. Har-tru suited him way better than red clay. So the four years where it was not played on HC, he won twice and reached the finals in the other two. Can hardly get any better. He could maybe have won three, had they been played on HC but I do not see him winning all four.
94 he did play but got injured before and missed the whole HC summer such that he got beaten by Yzaga at the USO. Without the injury he would likely have won.
I see your point, technically he was closer than the other two. What I meant is that he wasn't affected by some unexpected/extraordinary factors, but was rather outplayed solely by his opponents.
One need to watch the four matches Pete won against Andre. It is not only that Andre didn't win even one set, he looked completely helpless most of the time. Those matches were even clearer victories than the scorelines suggest. I see zero chance Pete would have lost at the USO against Agassi, save some weird upset in early rounds he wins that if healthy.
Ok, but what about 1997?
