If at the end of their careers, Rafael Nadal finishes with more US Open title than Novak Djokovic?

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Oh so Nadal is an ATG now when it suits Djokovic? I thought you were trying to make a stupid point on how he lost to other useless players. This is why you have no point. Djokovic lost to Nadal twice. Who cares if Nadal lost to other players lol he still has the same number of USOs as Djokovic and with less finals to boot. Djokovic is frankly embarassing at the USO.
Still a lot less embarrassing at his 3rd best major than Nadal has been at his. At least Novak didn't go six consecutive years at the US Open without even reaching the QF stage. ;)
 

Jon Snow

Semi-Pro
Because Djokovic's consistency at the US Open has been more impressive than Nadal's at Wimbledon. Surely you agree that the more matches you win in a tournament the better, no?

Wimbledon? I thought wre are talking about the US Open according to the thread title.

# of US Opens.

Djokovic = 2
Nadal = 2
 
C

Charlie

Guest
Oh so Nadal is an ATG now when it suits Djokovic? I thought you were trying to make a stupid point on how he lost to other useless players. This is why you have no point. Djokovic lost to Nadal twice. Who cares if Nadal lost to other players lol he still has the same number of USOs as Djokovic and with less finals to boot. Djokovic is frankly embarassing at the USO.
Nadal is an ATG no matter what we are talking about but the reason he has less finals is because he lost early often at the US Open, to worse players than Djokovic did. That's my point, while you are acting like Nadal was unfairly gifted 3 final appearances compared to Djokovic's 7. You have to earn that appearance as well.

And since the ************* members like to rate Nadal's title wins higher than every other player's due to "era strength", they shouldn't have a problem with rating ATG's losses too. But obviously Nadal is far more known for getting regularly squashed early outside of his pet Slam than Djokovic or Federer are, so VB will regularly call these discussions irrelevant. Consistently inconsistent bunch.
 

Jon Snow

Semi-Pro
Because Wimbledon is Nadal's 3rd best major(assuming he wins in NYC) just like the US Open is Djokovic's.

I repeat:

# of US Opens.

Djokovic = 2
Nadal = 2

You Novak fans can care about the little things, idc, I care about the big things - slams.
 

Jon Snow

Semi-Pro
You also don't seem to care much about consistency but that's alright, you're certainly not the only Nadal fan who feels that way.

I did say i don't care about quarter finals or semi-finals, how many times do I have to repeat myself? The post is literally on this page lol

What I care about is:

# of US Opens.

Djokovic = 2
Nadal = 2

Djokovic could make a million quarter finals but if he stays at 2 US Opens, it don't mean jack.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
I did say i don't care about quarter finals or semi-finals, how many times do I have to repeat myself? The post is literally on this page lol

What I care about is:

# of US Opens.

Djokovic = 2
Nadal = 2

Djokovic could make a million quarter finals but if he stays at 2 US Opens, it don't mean jack.
It does if Nadal stays at 2 as well. ;)
 

Jon Snow

Semi-Pro
It does if Nadal stays at 2 as well. ;)

Lol no it don't.

They would have equal US Opens. Nadal has beaten Djokovic twice while Novak has beaten Nadal once. Novak has a poor conversion rate at the USO finals with all his "consistency" amounting to being a loser at the biggest stage...

Nadal > Djokovic at the USO.
 

iChen

Semi-Pro
I mean as a Novak fan, it's stupid if you don't think Nadal isn't good on HC. But just like Novak being horrible at uso, Nadal is horrible at AO. So what if Nadal ends at 3 which I hope he does, he's still at 1 ao.
 

VolleyHelena

Semi-Pro
Lol no it don't.

They would have equal US Opens. Nadal has beaten Djokovic twice while Novak has beaten Nadal once. Novak has a poor conversion rate at the USO finals with all his "consistency" amounting to being a loser at the biggest stage...

Nadal > Djokovic at the USO.

tenor.gif
 

Jon Snow

Semi-Pro
So it's better to lose in the 1st round than to lose in a final? :D

Nah but it's better to beat the so called exceptionally consistent player twice at the USO finals and have the same number of US Opens as the guy who's super duper consistent...while playing less finals and skipping the tournament twice due to injuries. Dude, there's nothing you can hurt with me lol

Go to sleep kid.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Oh so Nadal is an ATG now when it suits Djokovic? I thought you were trying to make a stupid point on how he lost to other useless players. This is why you have no point. Djokovic lost to Nadal twice. Who cares if Nadal lost to other players lol he still has the same number of USOs as Djokovic and with less finals to boot. Djokovic is frankly embarassing at the USO.

Less finals to boot - LMFAO. That is not an achievement .

VB IQ always sucks.
 
C

Charlie

Guest
Nah but it's better to beat the so called exceptionally consistent player twice at the USO finals and have the same number of US Opens as the guy who's super duper consistent...while playing less finals and skipping the tournament twice due to injuries. Dude, there's nothing you can hurt with me lol

Go to sleep kid.
Again with this crap... You're making it sound like he was stripped an opportunity to play more finals by the tennis Gods or something when the fact is the guy LOST EARLY to far worse players. And since you're bringing up victories, no amount of Nadal's New York cupcake draws compares to Djokovic beating Fedal back to back in 2011 or beating Federer in the Davis Cup like atmosphere in 2015.
 

Jon Snow

Semi-Pro
Again with this crap... You're making it sound like he was stripped an opportunity to play more finals by the tennis Gods or something when the fact is the guy LOST EARLY to far worse players. And since you're bringing up victories, no amount of Nadal's New York cupcake draws compares to Djokovic beating Fedal back to back in 2011 or beating Federer in the Davis Cup like atmosphere in 2015.

> Davis Cup atmosphere

lol not Nadal's fault Djokovic isn't liked at the USO. And Nadal didn't get to play in 2012 and 2014 so yeah he was robbed of opportunities. He would have won both of them guaranteed considering you had a guy who can't play in windy conditions in the final or Murray who Nadal always batters him and Cilic/Nishikori in 2014.
 
C

Charlie

Guest
> Davis Cup atmosphere

lol not Nadal's fault Djokovic isn't liked at the USO.

And Nadal didn't get to play in 2012 and 2014 so yeah he was robbed of opportunities. He would have won both of them guaranteed considering you had a guy who can't play in windy conditions in the final or Murray who Nadal always batters him and Cilic/Nishikori in 2014.
Who said it was Nadal's fault Djokovic isn't liked at the USO, are you ret@rded? o_O

Considering he got bounced by players I previously mentioned when he was healthy, he wasn't going to win the title in 2012/14. He has the moral titles as always but the real ones as we all know rarely happen.
 

Jon Snow

Semi-Pro
Who said it was Nadal's fault Djokovic isn't liked at the USO, are you ret@rded? o_O

Considering he got bounced by players I previously mentioned when he was healthy, he wasn't going to win the title in 2012/14. He has the moral titles as always but the real ones as we all know rarely happen.

Considering Nadal whooped Novak's ass in 2013 he would've absolutely destroyed Novak/Murray and Nishikori/Cilic in their respective years lol who're you kidding, Nadal was actually good in those years, only injuries stopped him. 2015+ is a different matter.
 
C

Charlie

Guest
Considering Nadal whooped Novak's ass in 2013 he would've absolutely destroyed Novak/Murray and Nishikori/Cilic in their respective years lol who're you kidding, Nadal was actually good in those years, only injuries stopped him. 2015+ is a different matter.
Nadal was so good that he won one Slam outside of Roland Garros since the start of 2011. That one win in sixteen attempts and in the space of almost seven years is the reason you think he'd win more if he was healthy all the time.

Any more thoughts of this sort that will make us chuckle? :D
 

Jon Snow

Semi-Pro
Nadal was so good that he won one Slam outside of Roland Garros since the start of 2011. That one win in sixteen attempts and in the space of almost seven years is the reason you think he'd win more if he was healthy all the time.

Any more thoughts of this sort that will make us chuckle? :D

Yes because between 2012-2014 he was playing good Tennis yet he skipped 3 HC slams, further backed up by when he was healthy he was able to reach a HC slam in 2013 and (win) and reach a HC slam in AO 2014 and (lose). So yeah...he would have won more US Opens lol there's a precedent which is 2013 - healthy Nadal at the USO.
 
C

Charlie

Guest
Yes because between 2012-2014 he was playing good Tennis yet he skipped 3 HC slams, further backed up by when he was healthy he was able to reach a HC slam in 2013 and (win) and reach a HC slam in AO 2014 and (lose). So yeah...he would have won more US Opens lol there's a precedent which is 2013 - healthy Nadal at the USO.
Look who suddenly cares about finals. :) Winning a Slam in a certain year doesn't guarantee wins in the next one (not to mention the previous one LOL), especially since the guy we are talking about has only had three seasons so far in which he has won a hard court Slam. That's just not great is it...
 
Nadal is the ultimate big match player. Arguably the overall goatt. Over five sets when he is playing well on any surface he is unplayable. In fact only Djokovic has ever shown an ability to live with peak Nadal playing well.

But players don't always play at their best. While Djokovic on a hard court even at 50 per cent is very tough to beat, Nadal at 50 per cent can lose to any player in top 100.

On that basis Djokovic is a better hard court player regardless of what happens. Nadal winning USO just shows how great Nadal is when playing well arguable the greatest ever
 

iChen

Semi-Pro
Nadal is the ultimate big match player. Arguably the overall goatt. Over five sets when he is playing well on any surface he is unplayable. In fact only Djokovic has ever shown an ability to live with peak Nadal playing well.

But players don't always play at their best. While Djokovic on a hard court even at 50 per cent is very tough to beat, Nadal at 50 per cent can lose to any player in top 100.

On that basis Djokovic is a better hard court player regardless of what happens. Nadal winning USO just shows how great Nadal is when playing well arguable the greatest ever

As a Novak fan, maybe when Nadal reaches 17 then we'll talk about goat.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Lol no it don't.

They would have equal US Opens. Nadal has beaten Djokovic twice while Novak has beaten Nadal once. Novak has a poor conversion rate at the USO finals with all his "consistency" amounting to being a loser at the biggest stage...

Nadal > Djokovic at the USO.

The bolded is kinda Nadal's fault. Where was Rafa in 2007, 2015 and 2016 when Novak was in good form and waiting for him?
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
Surely you agree that the more matches you win in a tournament the better, no?

No, of course. not. What if Federer had won Wimbledon 8 times and never lost there to anyone? In such a scenario, he would have a total of 56 match wins there. But what if Djoker had played there every year since 2006 and gotten to the finals every year but never won it? He'd have 66 match wins there. Using your formula, Djoker would be the greater Wimbledon player than Fed.

Making the semis or even finals of tournaments but then losing in the final is not something that resonates with very many tennis historians, ex-players or anyone else. They lost the tournament, they don't get bonus points in legacy terms for making a final. For instance, Lendl made the finals of the USO 8 straight years but managed to win it "only" three times. Lendl himself regards this as a negative, as he's mentioned many times. Pete gets massive legacy points because his W/L ratio in slams is 14-4. Had he gotten to 10 more finals and lost them all, it would be 14-14. Almost nobody argues that a slam final for an ATG is something praiseworthy. It's 1200 points and that's it.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Lol no it don't.

They would have equal US Opens. Nadal has beaten Djokovic twice while Novak has beaten Nadal once. Novak has a poor conversion rate at the USO finals with all his "consistency" amounting to being a loser at the biggest stage...

Nadal > Djokovic at the USO.
So Wawrinka > Nadal at the AO.

Gotcha ;)
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
No, of course. not. What if Federer had won Wimbledon 8 times and never lost there to anyone? In such a scenario, he would have a total of 56 match wins there. But what if Djoker had played there every year since 2006 and gotten to the finals every year but never won it? He'd have 66 match wins there. Using your formula, Djoker would be the greater Wimbledon player than Fed.

Making the semis or even finals of tournaments but then losing in the final is not something that resonates with very many tennis historians, ex-players or anyone else. They lost the tournament, they don't get bonus points in legacy terms for making a final. For instance, Lendl made the finals of the USO 8 straight years but managed to win it "only" three times. Lendl himself regards this as a negative, as he's mentioned many times. Pete gets massive legacy points because his W/L ratio in slams is 14-4. Had he gotten to 10 more finals and lost them all, it would be 14-14. Almost nobody argues that a slam final for an ATG is something praiseworthy. It's 1200 points and that's it.

You are seriously equivocating here and conflating issues.

Extra QFs, SFs, and Finals is better than not.

That is a different issue from the exaggerated example you gave of pure match wins, which I agree is not a particularly meaningful stat compared to many others.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
> Davis Cup atmosphere

lol not Nadal's fault Djokovic isn't liked at the USO. And Nadal didn't get to play in 2012 and 2014 so yeah he was robbed of opportunities. He would have won both of them guaranteed considering you had a guy who can't play in windy conditions in the final or Murray who Nadal always batters him and Cilic/Nishikori in 2014.

Nadal lost to Murray in USO 08 and AO in 10. They are 2-2 in HC slams, slight 7-5 edge to Nadal on HC. Again, just exposing that you are as clueless as a dodo.

Cilic would've beat Nadal in USO 14, given the form he was in.
 

JoelSandwich

Hall of Fame
The better question would be who is the better USO player if Nadal ends up winning this one and Djokovic stays at 2?
 

duaneeo

Legend
Thus, it's entirely debatable if Novak Djokovic could even claim to be an ATG hard court player if a non-ATG hard court player like Rafael Nadal wins more US Open titles.

Regardless, Djokovic will have claims to being an ATG on hard.

...there's no shame for Djokovic if Nadal has more US Open titles.

Well, there is some shame. No way should Nadal end up with more US Open titles than a player many once proclaimed as the HC GOAT.

Nadal is already better than joker.
He's competing with Rogie for GOAT debate.

There's no GOAT debate except for the one in the minds of delusional Nadal fans.
 
Regardless, Djokovic will have claims to being an ATG on hard.



Well, there is some shame. No way should Nadal end up with more US Open titles than a player many once proclaimed as the HC GOAT.



There's no GOAT debate except for the one in the minds of delusional Nadal fans.
Sorry it's other way round. Most experts agre Nadal is GOAT as his major wins were in far stronger era than all but 5 of Federers.

The BBC sport tennis website pretty much as everyone saying Nadal is goat as do many other forums. Even this forums only has the same dozen or so Federer fans who live on here claiming Federer is goat.

Had Federer bear Nadal at USO tonight had they played I would have said Federer but not now. Federer is the fast court GOat that's it.
 
As a Novak fan, maybe when Nadal reaches 17 then we'll talk about goat.
Nadal already goat as all 15 of his majors were when there were two ATGS at their peak to contend with. Between 2003 -2007 Federer didn't have any other ATGS at their peak. There is an argument to put Djokovic ahead of Federer
 
Depends how you define ATG. if Rafa wins on Sunday he will only be behind a handful of players in the history of the game when it comes to HC slams. I would imagine even making the top ten is considered an ATG considering the amount of players that have tried in the open era alone

Enviado desde mi E6853 mediante Tapatalk
 
Top