I know this as i read both from posters or wiki kinds. It feels like you are taking credit from him. This should apply to all Pete, Fed too. Then we should analyze every year for every player.
Nadal's whole career is like this.
In 97 Thalassemia minor kicked in such that he could not save a 3-0 lead in the fifth against Korda over the finish line in the fourth round.
When was it that Nadal cleared the US HC swing beating the future US Open champion left right and center but missed the USO due to injury? If he had such years I would give him the same credit/benefit of the doubt as Pete.
What about it? It was a legitimate loss, Korda beat peak Sampras, it happens. Even Pete said in a post-match interview that he was feeling fine (physically) in the end, just that Korda delivered an incredible performance. Don't see how it changes what I said, Pete is not unbeatable, but would've been the favorite for both 1994 and 1999 editions imo.
Yep, somebody would have to play on a level similar to Krajicek's at 1996 Wimbledon or Korda's at the USO to beat that version of Pete. But it definitely robbed him of a chance to compete, which is pity.
I think I misunderstood and I did the math after I posted.
That would be 7, he won in 1990 as well. I'm saying that he would've won six (at least one of these two editions - 1994/1999) titles had not for some bad luck.
Plus the 90 title, which would give him 7. That would be if all stars align though. Six is more realistic, giving him one of 94 or 99.
Oh, right, correct. I forgot about 1990 which might just be his most impressive title there LOL.
If all of those tournaments were on HC, it'd be way easier to compare him to other players because now we're holding the surface constant. But as it stands, Connors's five US Opens on a mix of HC, grass, and clay aren't exactly equivalent to winning all five on a standardized HC surface.
Korda was indeed tricky. 5-12 H2H sounds convincing, but a lot of Pete's wins were tough five setters or, in Bo3, three setters that involved several tie-breaks. I cannot see any Korda version beating a 99 Pete though, Krajicek is a different animal though, but I highly doubt there was anyone in 99 USO who would have replicated his 96 Wimbledon form.
I meant in general. Nadal was playing some of his best tennis at RG also at AO in 2012. Yes he lost early in Wimbledon but same happened other years Nadal won USO then.
Yes we do believe.
I loved Korda's game a lot, a very talented all-court player and a shotmaker, who could be very dangerous when he finds his range (which didn't happen often). He was blasting winners off both wings from the baseline in that match vs Pete, and his return was clicking. But he couldn't replicate such performances often enough, which is disappointing and frustrating if you're a fan. He pushed him as well at the Wimbledon that year and is a rare player with a winning H2H over Pete in BO5.
There is this narrative that Nadal shouldn't be that good and he is generally underrated outside of clay at slams.
He still beat those players also in big matches at the USO. A lot of the time he entered USO worn down and tired, or not quite 100% physically. The reason is because he had already won so much from January to July. I don't see how that's a negative anyway when he's been to 10 USO finals.
Well he was #1 in 2016 and holding 2 Slams, even if he didn't play well. That is just a better win than a win against green Djokovic who just became a top player in 2007. 2008 Djokovic I would agree with you on that considering the year he had. Still, 2016 Djokovic was the dominant player at that time.
2017 withdrew
Of the more famous ones, other than Korda off the top of my head it is Edberg, Krajicek, Stich, Fed. Then from the less known ones Noah, Berger, Rostagno, Schaller, Bastl, Blanco, Leconte. But yeah, Korda indeed stands out since he is the only one with a clearly negative overall H2H AND a meaningful number of Bo5 matches.
Yes his 2017 is the same as Nadal's misses. He would be top contender at USO17. I'm trying to be objective here didn't asked you either. You are not objective here just quote from 1 part.
We've been over the competition in his 30s. Was it the toughest he faced in his career? Obviously not. It's still not easy to do in your 30s. If that was the case, Nadal would have won more outside of RG. Djokovic won 2 USO in his 20s, same as Nadal, Agassi and Edberg. Lendl and Connors won 3. So to say it's such a low title count is kind of a head scratcher.
Let's put it like that: if nobody ever was injured then I give Pete way better chances to win 94 and/or 99 than i give Nadal in 2012, 14, 20. We can even add 98 for Pete were he got injured in the match against Rafter (full credit to Pat but Pete was hobbling around in the last two sets).
Yeah well I assumed they played a sizeable number of matches (and preferably during Pete's prime), let's say 3 or more, so Edberg, Krajicek, Stich and Korda belong to the elite group imo. Certainly wasn't thinking of someone like Delgado, lol.
Yeah here Korda is still an outlier as the other three have a positive overall H2H while Korda's is (clearly) negative. Interesting that he could raise his level so much in bo5.
Again, it doesn't matter when you win as long as you win. I would take any combination as long as I reach 7, especially if I beat my toughest rivals for most of them which he did. You're basically implying that the 2018 and 2019 wins aren't impressive when those two matches against Fedal will always be considered classics for different reasons. If it weren't for Djokovic, Federer would have won 5 in his 20s and 5 in his 30s because no one else could beat him.
Thats fair take still not entirely convinced but i can't comment about Pete. Because you compare Pete's 94 with Nadal's 2012-14-20 Nadal didn't played those but Sampras played and lost(Nadal has mid tournament problems too)
Why would losing to great grass players Federer and Murray in 2012 and 2013 be used against him? I wonder when Sinner goes on to become a multi Slam champion, which he will do, will Djokovic's win in 2022 be considered against a bunch of mugs. I don't see what's wrong with his draw in 2022, which was definitely tougher than 2021, especially when you compare it to Sampras' in 1997 and 2000. His draw in 2000 was really pathetic so because Sampras had his mug draws in his 20s, it was more impressive? Not hardly. Djokovic played exceptionally well in that 2022 final as well and much better than what Sampras showed in 2000. Your perspective needs adjusting.
When you compare players from now to 70-90's thats not the same. You can use that logic more for Djokovic against Nadal and Federer.
There's truth to this first paragraph but I don't see where I made that comparison tbh.
For me it's okay if you think Djokovic is par specially because of his Rome titles for me. But looking from Lendl's side doesn't feel exactly right.
I hit the post reply button by mistake before I was done. Take a look at the edited post.
Yes Nadal won 4 but you are including 2010. You asked 2011 to 2020. Nadal did benefit from low competition in 2010 as well as 2017/2019. While Djokovic did face fed in 2007/08/09/10/11
I assumed this thread was a dig at sampras connors and Federer given they hold the record there? Either way seems the uso is very frustrating for one ATG fanbase.Those 4 titles eating you up still I see, good
Oh yeah….. and 2-1 bestie
I mean I don't rule out that Nadal wins in 12, 14 or 20, nor do I say that he wasn't unlucky (if this is the right word) with injuries. However, Pete in 99 dominated the whole US HC swing and beat the later US Open champion Agassi twice without losing a set. He then came back from injury and won the YEC again destroying Agassi in the final. In 94 he had his strongest year winning next to everything until his injury but also after coming back still won YEC. Nadal in 12/14/20 was never as dominant and such a clear favorite. If he had gone injured in 2013 after winning Canada and Cincinatti where he beat Djoko, then we might have a more or less valid comparison.
It is real ofc but then again at the very least partly it is also because today's athletes simply are way more disciplined, focused and health concerned. Still in the 90s and even early till mid 2000s you had lots of heavy drinkers (Ronaldinho, Gascoigne) or chain smokers playing on the highest level in professional football. It is obvious that such a lifestyle fires back after a while and won't provide you great longevity.
True my bad first point. Nadal still have more since 2010 to 2020 though. Don't think Nadal's 2019 USO is weak at all he beat good Medvedev . Also beating 2010 Djokovic who beat Federer only considered weak by some fans like you. Nadal was 3-7 against Djokovic on HC before USO 2010.
Wouldn’t say there is a debate. Federer won 5 in a row and lost a 6th final during his physical prime. Djokovic won 2 out of 10 attempts since he reached his first final and inflated his stats with another two playing dross since 2018. The two aren’t in the same atmosphere.
Still, this win being ranked much higher than 2011 is sus
It's the correct attitude because winning is winning no matter the age.
Eighties guys say that Connors would have beaten Lendl in the final of the 1984 US Open if McEnroe hadn't gotten in his way.
Grass is Wawrinka's worst surface. He made multiple SFs and finals at those Slams that he won. He's never made one Wimbledon SF and has only one top 10 win on grass in his career which was 2018 Dimitrov. Of course it would have been different on grass, epsecially against that version of Djokovic. Bringing him up as some lost rival is desperation.
