If Djokovic drops to the 3-7 in USO finals by losing to Alcaraz (losing to 6 different opponents), how bad will that look?

[Cortana]

Welcome to this forum.

Where losing before the final is a better achievement than losing in the final, lol.

 

[TMF]

Just becuse you're in the minority doesn't mean it isn't pretty agreed upon.

You're free to agree on something with zero context behind the numbers. I take them with a grain of salt.

People who are well-informed and arms with tennis knowledge have better discernment

 

[duaneeo]

I don't think anyone can seriously argue Nadal > Djokovic at this point because of 1 more USO title. So why does it matter?

Even if he ties, Rafa fans will still make fun of him for only being tied with a supposed clay court specialist and bust out the 2-1, Bud til the cows come home.

Nadal was making his first USO final in 2010, and had lost to Ferrer in 2007, Murray in 2008, and Del Potro in 2009. It was Nole's 2nd USO final, and he had lost to no one but Federer the previous 3 years. One would expect the future agreed upon HC GOAT to win. The 2013 loss is bad not only because it happened during his peak, but that it was in four sets...with only 2 games won in the first and one game won in the last.

Welcome to this forum.

Where losing before the final is a better achievement than losing in the final, lol.

There's much greater pressure to win a slam final, so once the USO final is reached, the advantage should go to the ATG and supposed HC GOAT.

 

[Fiero425]

His 13 hc slams are too unbalanced, with 10 ao and 3 uso(along with a bad record).

According to ultimate tennis stats, Djokovic doesn't have the most ATP records, let alone having all the records. LOL

Djokovic still has a lot to prove, and wants to receive the same respect and recognition as Fedal, that's why he's not retired yet

That's hilarious! I've been saying for years Nadal isn't the GOAT due to such an unbalanced resume; 2 Wimbledons, 1 AO (at the time; 2 now), 4 USO, & 14 FO! If he isn't the "clay GOAT" I don't know who is! Fedovic have a much more balanced record and have 6 YEC compared to Nadal's zero wins at the end of the season!

 

[Nadalgaenger]

That USO record is a big blight on the GOAT resume.

He has three USO titles right and wasn’t allowed to play two other USOs where he might have won.

Rafa only has two AO and Wimbledon, Fed only one FO. Pete O FO and Borg O USO…

 

[Fiero425]

He has three USO titles right and wasn’t allowed to play two other USOs where he might have won.

Rafa only has two AO and Wimbledon, Fed only one FO. Pete O FO and Borg O USO…

Hard to put any of them above Djokovic even w/ his troubles at the USO! He has a very balanced resume! Anything won from now on is pure gravy to his records!

 

[TheNachoMan]

That USO record is a big blight on the GOAT resume.

TCGS is truly a blight on his resume.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Being the AO GOAT doesn't make him the HC GOAT.

He has other HC records outside of AO.

 

[Fiero425]

He has other HC records outside of AO.

Most of his record 38 Masters wins are on HC! Someone's being a troll!

 

[socallefty]

Losing to the player seeded above him is to be expected. Would be quite an achievement still to win 2 Slams and make 2 finals at his advanced age. It is better to lose in the Final to a higher seeded player than to be upset by someone else or lose in an earlier round, isn’t it?

 

[a10best]

I'll be fair as I was against the pro-Djokovic record threads as I am here. Why create negativity?
3-6 at USO is offset a lot by 10-0 in Oz.

 

[duaneeo]

Most of his record 38 Masters wins are on HC! Someone's being a troll!

Masters' numbers are skewed. Many Masters had BO5 finals during Federer's peak, as did the YEC and some 500 events (including Basel). Federer played in 11 BO5 finals in 2006. He often skipped several of the HC Masters.

Regardless, at the more-important HC slams, a player wouldn't have 6 losses in USO finals against 5 different players if he were the HC GOAT.

 

[Fiero425]

Masters' numbers are skewed. Many Masters had BO5 finals during Federer's peak, as did the YEC and some 500 events (including Basel). Federer played in 11 BO5 finals in 2006. He often skipped several of the HC Masters.

Regardless, at the more-important HC slams, a player wouldn't have 6 losses in USO finals against 5 different players if he were the HC GOAT.

Well if that helps get you thru the night; FINE! You can't surprise or gain some commiseration just because of rule's changes! I could make a big deal of the sorry state of things w/ the lack of competitition early on for Roger! His personally pigeon was A-Rod and he never defeated him in a major; though very close in 2009 when he blew that high BH volley in the 2nd set TB in their Wimbledon final! I'm the wrong one to challenge w/ BS since I lived the entire careers of the Big 3! Their like may never be seen again even though Alacraz looks like the real deal!

 

[duaneeo]

I could make a big deal of the sorry state of things w/ the lack of competitition early on for Roger! His personally pigeon was A-Rod and he never defeated him in a major; though very close in 2009 when he blew that high BH volley in the 2nd set TB in their Wimbledon final! I'm the wrong one to challenge w/ BS since I lived the entire careers of the Big 3!

Yes, things would've been different for peak/prime Roger if he had faced Murray and Wawrinka at the slams instead of Roddick and Hewitt.

 

[Hitman]

How bad would it look?

This is how bad it will look. And his bad is better than everyone else's best. His trophy cabinet is still the greatest.

 

[tudwell]

Nothing Novak does at this age can negatively affect him imo. He can only enhance his legacy at this point.

If a 36 year old Djokovic loses another final at one of his worst majors to current #1 and defending champion Alcaraz, how is that a bad thing?

If Novak loses another match in his career it’s definitive proof he’s not GOAT material. Nuff said, no excuses.

 

[Fiero425]

If Novak loses another match in his career it’s definitive proof he’s not GOAT material. Nuff said, no excuses.

Wow! Seek some serious help! You have issues that this board can't solve!

 

[ffw2]

Wow! Seek some serious help! You have issues that this board can't solve!

What issues can it solve?

 

[Fiero425]

What issues can it solve?

When actually facts & other info's posted, it's quite helpful to me! Fortunately I've been into tennis for over 50 years & it's hard to stump me w/ BS I know is fake!

 

[CHillTennis]

He's already got the record for most final losses in a slam, how bad would 3-7 look for a guy most people consider the HC Goat (compared to 10-0 at AO?)

That's equal to Lendl.

He was also 3-7 in US Open finals.

Why is it that Lendl is remembered for being a great US Open player but Djokovic is not?

 

[servebottingonclay]

That's equal to Lendl.

He was also 3-7 in US Open finals.

Why is it that Lendl is remembered for being a great US Open player but Djokovic is not?

Lendl was 3-5.

 

[CHillTennis]

Lendl was 3-5.

Lend won in 1985, 86 and 87.

He lost in 1982, 83, 84, 88, and 89.

Djokovic won in 2011, 15 and 18.

He lost in 2007, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 21.

So just one more loss than Lendl.

 

[Fiero425]

That's equal to Lendl.

He was also 3-7 in US Open finals.

Why is it that Lendl is remembered for being a great US Open player but Djokovic is not?

Lend won in 1985, 86 and 87.

He lost in 1982, 83, 84, 88, and 89.

Djokovic won in 2011, 15 and 18.

He lost in 2007, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 21.

So just one more loss than Lendl.

It wasn't just the wins and losses that make the difference! It's the obvious tenure of Lendl owning the USO final for 8 straight years; winning 3 in a row! The USO was still the bugga-boo event of a lot players besides being the 4th major if trying to complete a CYGS! Lendl owned the USO like no other even though he only won 3!

 

[Federev]

Welcome to this forum.

Where losing before the final is a better achievement than losing in the final, lol.

Amen.

Here’s looking at you Peter Sampras’ Wimbledon record.

You’re so much better than Roger what with your 2nd and 4th round exits and retiring at 30.

 

[Fiero425]

Amen.

Here’s looking at you Peter Sampras’ Wimbledon record.

You’re so much better than Roger what with your 2nd and 4th round exits and retiring at 30.

Well Federer played twice as many years competing in a lot more Wimbledon events! It's not a fair comparison except their contemporaries!

 

[Cortana]

If we apply the logic of this forum. Wawrinka was the best AO/USO player of this century.

 

[Fiero425]

If we apply the logic of this forum. Wawrinka was the best AO/USO player of this century.

Very twisted logic, but I see where you could be going though!

 

[Start da Game]

he has already slipped below lendl's record with 3-6 at uso finals......losing 6 finals on a fast hardcourt and winning all 10 finals of medium-slow court in cooler night conditions is not really a sign of true hardcourt goat, he is more of a slow hardcourt court goat......clearly sampras and fed are ahead of him on fast courts......

 

[JaxTeller]

Djokovic has lost slam finals(vs players other than the big3) on a HC, on a Clay court and on Grass..

Most surface versatile loser of all time..

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Why is it that Lendl is remembered for being a great US Open player but Djokovic is not?

probably because he displayed RG-esque dominance

12	Ivan Lendl*​	1987	US Open	134-59	69.4%
14	Sergi Bruguera*​	1993	Roland Garros	137-62	68.8%
15	Bjorn Borg*​	1975	Roland Garros	117-53	68.8%
16	Ivan Lendl*​	1985	US Open	132-60	68.8%
17	Ivan Lendl*​	1986	US Open	130-60	68.4%

 

[thrust]

He's already got the record for most final losses in a slam, how bad would 3-7 look for a guy most people consider the HC Goat (compared to 10-0 at AO?)

Novak still would have 23 slams, which is more than any other player in the open era.

 

[Federev]

Well Federer played twice as many years competing in a lot more Wimbledon events! It's not a fair comparison except their contemporaries!

My point is simply that it’s shallow to say Peter never lost a final so he’d better than Fed.

He lost at Wimbledon in much less laudable stages than finals. That isn’t better.

And it’s no criticism of Federer that he didn’t give up when Peter did.

Fed’s 8 wins in 12 finals is better than 7 wins and losing in the 4th and 2nd rounds any day

 

[DjokoFan1987]

As much as I would hate it it wouldn't look as bad as people might think just because you can explain a lot of those losses. 2010 Nadal was just too good and Novak hadn't turned into peak Novak yet. 2012/2013 were the real kickers and imo Novak should have won 1 if not both but 2013 I can at least understand since Nadal legit was playing very well that tournament. 2016 he i believe had an injury and it was a miracle he made it to the final at all. 2021 he had the nerves from CYGS plus Med not just played well but also is just a horrible matchup for Novak. Not giving him any excuses here, but it's really just 2 of those opportunities that it's like wtf how did you lose and he still has 3 which is not too shabby

 

[TMF]

Novak still would have 23 slams, which is more than any other player in the open era.

So what. Rosewall has 23 majors but is he better/greater than Laver? Court has 24 but is she better/greater than Graf, or even Navratilova ?

Numbers standing alone doesn't reveal the whole story !

 

[MichaelNadal]

Djokovic could be Alcaraz's father. And he already beat him on clay. Some perspective is needed.

13 HC slams and all records, nuff said. Anything Djoko does from now is just a bonus.

Its funny how yall have started to say this like its true

 

[TMF]

Its funny how yall have started to say this like its true

They only start counting records at the beginning of 2011

 

[TheNachoMan]

Its funny how yall have started to say this like its true

He has all the records that matter.

 

[MichaelNadal]

They only start counting records at the beginning of 2011

More like 2015 bc Nadal sent him packing in 12,13 and 14

 

[MichaelNadal]

He has all the records that matter.

All the records that matter to you lol. He doesn’t even have more slams than Rafa at half the slams

 

[TheNachoMan]

All the records that matter to you lol. He doesn’t even have more slams than Rafa at half the slams

Nadal would have half the weeks Novak has at #1 if not for the Wimbledon points ban last year

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal would have half the weeks Novak has at #1 if not for the Wimbledon points ban last year

And Novak would have half the weeks he has if half of his peak was from 05-07 great timing as always, ill give him that

 

[TheNachoMan]

And Novak would have half the weeks he has if half of his peak was from 05-07 great timing as always, ill give him that

Nadal was never going to be a dominant #1. He relies too heavily on one part of the season

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal was never going to be a dominant #1. He relies too heavily on one part of the season

Nadal would have been number 1 for 5 straight years without peak Federer, put the kool aid down and be glad Novak benefitted from still being around to rack up “WEAKS” at number 1

 

[Holmes]

That USO record is a big blight on the GOAT resume.

So is being 0-3 to your rival in the finals of your best slam.

 

[Phoenix*]

Nadal would have been number 1 for 5 straight years without peak Federer, put the kool aid down and be glad Novak benefitted from still being around to rack up “WEAKS” at number 1

I'm sure it has nothing to do with Djokovic pigeoning him on the main surface.

 

[Razer]

My point is simply that it’s shallow to say Peter never lost a final so he’d better than Fed.

He lost at Wimbledon in much less laudable stages than finals. That isn’t better.

And it’s no criticism of Federer that he didn’t give up when Peter did.

Fed’s 8 wins in 12 finals is better than 7 wins and losing in the 4th and 2nd rounds any day

Peter played in an era before the Great Age Shift, so his 7 titles is like 9-10 titles today adjusting for inflation.

In the 20th century 7 titles at any slams was a really big deal.... not today. So no, Roger's 8 titles while it is bigger in numbers doesnt have the same punch when someone in his own era has 7 titles and probably might win an 8th next year.

Peter > Roger

 

[Federev]

Peter played in an era before the Great Age Shift, so his 7 titles is like 9-10 titles today adjusting for inflation.

In the 20th century 7 titles at any slams was a really big deal.... not today. So no, Roger's 8 titles while it is bigger in numbers doesnt have the same punch when someone in his own era has 7 titles and probably might win an 8th next year.

Peter > Roger

Disagree.

 

[Unseeded Player]

Really bad, considering he's supposed to be the HC GOAT. Losing before the final would be better, as weird as that sounds.

Well who had more deep runs than him? I can't take nothing away from any of the player that beated him in final in NY.. Only loss against Nishikori is to be regret, Novak had easy draw for the title...

 

[Razer]

Djokovic's defeats in the USO finals are only a reflection of the strong era he played in.

 

[Unseeded Player]

Nadal was making his first USO final in 2010, and had lost to Ferrer in 2007, Murray in 2008, and Del Potro in 2009. It was Nole's 2nd USO final, and he had lost to no one but Federer the previous 3 years. One would expect the future agreed upon HC GOAT to win. The 2013 loss is bad not only because it happened during his peak, but that it was in four sets...with only 2 games won in the first and one game won in the last.



There's much greater pressure to win a slam final, so once the USO final is reached, the advantage should go to the ATG and supposed HC GOAT.

2010 was best season in Rafa's career and one of the worst in Novak career. It isn't just court but higher ball bouncing suits Nadal more. The tournaments that he won multiple times on hard court, US Open, Montreal, Indian Wells and Acapulco are all high bouncing courts. Unlike Miami. Add to this that US is played in September when players are not fully charged like for the AO and also air conditions that can be in favour to some player. Look at the air conditions in 2013 and in 2011.

That should be the case but several factors are included.