If Novak wins USO 2014, then he is better than Rafa on 3 majors

[MichaelNadal]

I don't think any fan of Novak would deny that it would be more meaningful for him to take out Nadal this year on the way to the US Open title, rather than have Nadal lose in the SF and Novak win without facing down his archrival. This despite the fact that Nadal reaching and losing an extra final would add value to his career and make it marginally harder for Novak to reach YE#1.

My recollection is that Nadal fans were thrilled he beat Novak in NY last year, despite it meaning Nadal would have to work a little harder to be YE#1.

Why is that? Because nothing tops topping your nemesis on the biggest stages, when all eyes are on the two of you. Anybody think Vajda et al would've gone around humping cars in Madrid if Novak had beaten Tsonga in the 2011 final?

Still one of the most ridiculous things I've seen :lol:

 

[Djokovic2011]

I don't think any fan of Novak would deny that it would be more meaningful for him to take out Nadal this year on the way to the US Open title, rather than have Nadal lose in the SF and Novak win without facing down his archrival. This despite the fact that Nadal reaching and losing an extra final would add value to his career and make it marginally harder for Novak to reach YE#1.

My recollection is that Nadal fans were thrilled he beat Novak in NY last year, despite it meaning Nadal would have to work a little harder to be YE#1.

Why is that? Because nothing tops topping your nemesis on the biggest stages, when all eyes are on the two of you. Anybody think Vajda et al would've gone around humping cars in Madrid if Novak had beaten Tsonga in the 2011 final?

Winning the title is what counts, not who you beat to earn it.

 

[eldanger25]

Winning the title is what counts, not who you beat to earn it.

The 19 billion threads on this board complaining about one player or another's championship-winning draw says otherwise. Same with all the complaints about Nadal's 2010 SW19 title, as well as Fed's victories over good old Roddick.

 

[The_Order]

Being runner up at a Slam is also classed as an achievement. Check out timnz' thread.

Funny how you don't fight this hard for Nadal's case of being greater than Djokovic at Wimbledon when he has 3F to Novak's 1 and they both have 2 titles there whereas at USO Nadal has more...

You see, I knew from the beginning you were a troll. Others were not so convinced and respected you as a poster on here. Now that Novak has FINALLY won a major you've shown your true colors and in doing so have lost the respect that some of the other posters on here had for you.

 

[The_Order]

Winning the title is what counts, not who you beat to earn it.

Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Noleberic123]

Absolutely ridiculous.

why is that ridiculous?

 

[Tony48]

I misread the thread. I didn't realize it was going on the presumption that Novak would win the U.S. Open.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

The 19 billion threads on this board complaining about one player or another's championship-winning draw says otherwise. Same with all the complaints about Nadal's 2010 SW19 title, as well as Fed's victories over good old Roddick.

No one should be making complaints about Nadal's SW19 title. The top tier competition was there in the draws at that slam, them losing means people were playing well enough to beat them.

The Fed weak era complaints have some validity to them, but not as much as people would have you believe. I would personally say prime Roddick on grass as a player was probably near Djoker/Nadal/Murray on grass. Obviously he won't ever be ranked with them on a list, but I think most would agree Roddick was the best ever grass player to never win Wimbledon. Also, obviously Nadal in his grass prime was around 06-08. Plus you had a lot more guys who played traditional grass tennis in those days and not as much baseliners.

His competition on hard courts was certainly lacking. The fact that 19-20 year old Nole could come up and bulldoze through the competition to a USO final in 07 and AO title in 08 was telling of that. But I would maintain 05-06 Fed was at a high enough level that it wouldn't have mattered really what the competition level was. No one was stopping him at USO in those years and probably only Nole's peak 2011/2012 AO form on plexicushion could have beaten him at AO 06. 04/07 Fed's weak hard court draws might have netted in 1-2 extra slams, but they are balanced by having to deal with Nadal on clay.

I don't think any fan of Novak would deny that it would be more meaningful for him to take out Nadal this year on the way to the US Open title, rather than have Nadal lose in the SF and Novak win without facing down his archrival. This despite the fact that Nadal reaching and losing an extra final would add value to his career and make it marginally harder for Novak to reach YE#1.

My recollection is that Nadal fans were thrilled he beat Novak in NY last year, despite it meaning Nadal would have to work a little harder to be YE#1.

Why is that? Because nothing tops topping your nemesis on the biggest stages, when all eyes are on the two of you. Anybody think Vajda et al would've gone around humping cars in Madrid if Novak had beaten Tsonga in the 2011 final?

I would honestly not find it any less thrilling as a fan if Nole won the US Open by

1)getting revenge for USO 2012 and beating Murray in the finals
2)paid Wawrinka back for taking his AO title
3)halted Fed from getting #18 again after witnessing the pain of Fed stopping him on so many different occasions at USO before. (As you are aware from another one of my threads, this is my favorite match-up in this era over both Fed/Nadal or Nole/Nadal)
4)being the saving grace for the big 4 and holding off a charging new generation Dimitrov who was riding a wave of beating Nadal + Fed or Nadal + Wawrinka in the QF/SF

Being runner up at a Slam is also classed as an achievement. Check out timnz' thread.

Eh sorry bro, I gotta disagree on this one. Slam Finals and consistency definitely come into play but only in cases where the Slam Wins are tied. An extra championship has immeasurable value for rankings at that Slam that nothing else can overcome. Now in terms of total career rankings, one can surpass someone else with less slams given the appropriate set of circumstances.

Only behind in the title edge huh?

Way to quote out of context. I even acknowledged in that post Nadal is above Nole SOLELY because of that at USO. The point of that post was to show Nole's lead on Murray at Wimby is greater than Nadal's over Nole at USO.

I'm a little hesitant to switch the terms of the conversation from a comparison of performances at an event across careers to evaluation of performances at multiple events across a single season - as I've said a few times, this is a dynamic inquiry.

Is there a link to the results of the season you're referencing - would be interested to look at it more closely before making any blanket statements.

Let me look around for you, this is a factoid I pulled out of my brain. But it happened in 1959 I can tell you for sure.

Same answer as before. Overall, Andre - his impact at the event across eras is tremendous. Through 1997, which is the fairest comparison to Novak - I'd give the edge to Novak.

Hmm interesting, I was expecting you to rank Andre over both Nadal and Nole but struggle a little more with Nole.

Just so I'm clear, since we've drilled down pretty deep here - we agree that titles trump all, and the only question is how much to value performances against the field versus performances against the player as tiebreakers when both players have the same number of titles - is that right?

Yes exactly.

Ill respond to the rest of this post in a bit. My point in asking those questions though regarding Agassi was that I think Nole's record at USO (with a 2nd USO) would be more transferable in terms of obtaining a higher ranking against USO players of other eras, because it has an absolute edge over Nadal. This is why accomplishments vs the field should be ranked higher because head to head has no value in that regard.

Lets disregard Agassi then and use a hypothetical player A who has 2 USO titles, 5 Finals Appearances, and an 83% career win % at USO. I would think based on absolute values the rankings would go Nole>A>Nadal.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

You mean the edge that matters? Yes I get it's not the same, no kidding. But it's a silly statement. 2 slams>> 1. I don't care how much anyone might WANT or HOPE or WISH Novak had a better career than Rafa... he doesn't. The sooner they deal, the better. Let Novak go out and actually ACHEIVE these things and then no one has issues.

Yes, and I acknowledged Nadal is above Nole at USO right now because of it multiple times. No need to be so rude and condescending. Its not silly to say Nole is very close to Nadal at USO career-wise. If he were to win another title, he would move very clearly ahead. Murray vs Nole, if Murray were to win another Wimby title, I'd still rank Nole ahead.

You have to take other things into account though MN. Consistency counts for a lot as well and should also be highly valued.

Only if the slam count is tied when we are rating players at a specific slam.

Borg did not even compete at the AO, a lot has changed since he played. Again, arguing about who the GOAT is to me rather pointless. The title doesn't exist, it's subjective and people will have their preferences. Fed has his respective accomplishments (and they are impressive), as does Rafa. Fed, i'd always argue benefited from timing but there is no doubt that he is overall better on two of the three surfaces. Does that make him a greater player? There is an argument but if Rafa surpasses his GS total, I think it's rather weak. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter how many are on clay. If it were that easy, surely another would have done it. What Rafa has done on clay is unprecedented and he's also won major titles on all surfaces. Also, your argument would be a little more valid IMV if Fed had more than one FO. The fact is, he doesn't and thus is not balanced in his GS titles either. I don't really care about Halle/Queens, they aren't even masters 1000s. Lastly, it's pretty telling that when you aimed to compare them, you completely left out clay results.

True regarding Borg at the AO, but even if you give him credit for his two Masters Titles being equal to slams he still falls shy of Sampras' total and he like Sampras has the hole of never winning at a slam (USO) plus far fewer weeks/years #1 than Sampras/Fed. He doesn't have much going for him to be ranked above those 3.

And its not about it being easy to do on clay, its just when you are saying someone is the greatest ever, to me that means they have to have arguments at more than one place. Nadal would not be among the five best players on any surface besides clay. Fed has an argument for grass GOAT, Indoor Hard GOAT, Fast Hard GOAT, and (at least until Djoker wins another AO) Slow Hard GOAT, and I would say his ranking on an open era clay list would probably match wherever Nadal is ranked on any of those surfaces. True Halle/Queens aren't 1000s but they are the top titles on grass after Wimbledon. I wasn't trying to pull anything by leaving out the clay results, my bad if you thought that. I figured its rather obvious and was implied when I called him the Clay GOAT and said he has dominated the surface.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

You're being unnecessarily reductive, and taking a far too quantitative approach to a dynamic issue. Novak beating Stan and then losing to Nadal last year increased the absolute value of his career at the Open, to the extent a final appearance is more impressive than a semifinal appearance. Novak losing the rubber match between he and Nadal, and in so doing falling behind him in the high stakes encounters and number of titles at the tournament hurt his comparative value to Nadal.

I disagree, Nole's absolute value increased with the finals appearance. Nadal's absolute value is the same in winning a slam regardless of who he beats in the finals. Ergo its not possible for his comparative value to decrease. Nadal either beats Nole or the man who played well enough to beat Nole. If Nadal won the AO I would not say it was any less impressive to do it over Wawrinka rather than Nole considering the level Wawrinka needed to produce to beat Nole.

Moreover, I believe that title bouts are utterly unique, and deserve special consideration - hence my inclusion of winning percentage in finals interacting with total finals reached. Novak has been labelled as somebody who can't deliver when the lights are brightest - he just recently spoke about how much that issue was in his head through last Sunday, and how important it was for him to beat Roger. So beating Stan and losing to Rafa actually reinforced a negative stereotype about his game, psyche, and championship demeanor - that he's not clutch - and therefore did harm to his legacy at the Open, regardless of how many quantitative metrics he performed well in.

I can't tell you how derisively LeBron James was treated by fans and the media when he couldn't win in the conference and NBA finals through 2012. How about Peyton Manning or Wayne Rooney? Not a playoff performer - not clutch, etc. Ever read any articles comparing Peyton to his little brother Eli? The former blew the latter out of the water stats-wise, but Eli had mystique because he won the Super Bowl 2x via clutch play. Maybe that's not fair, but it's relevant. And it's even less fair for top guys in team sports, because they have to rely on others much moreso than tennis players, who have their own fates in their own hands.

I'm from Cleveland bro, so I know all about LBJ's failures in 08-10 =P and I would say most people who know football dismiss all of that when ranking people. No serious analysts put Peyton below Eli or having LBJ ranked anything below #1 in the NBA. Its the same stupid argument of saying Michael Jordan being 6-0 in the NBA Finals is so impressive. All it means is he wasn't good enough to reach the finals in the years he lost. If LeBron goes on to finish 6-3 in the NBA finals that is far more impressive than 6-0, but 6-0>5-3.

Again, you gotta look deeper than the numbers - I don't mean to be facile, but these are people, not machines. Some guys handle the pressure of the championship match (and the final weekend) better than others, which isn't adequately captured by numbers alone, but is incredibly relevant to comparing careers at one major or another.

I don't think you can use this argument against anyone who has won 7 majors and 45 titles like Nole has. He has proven many times he can come through in the clutch. All his finals numbers show is, even when not playing his top level he is consistent enough to keep reaching finals, unlike Nadal who will flame out in the early rounds if he is not at his normal game. I posted another thread where I mentioned this saying Djokovic at his floor levels and peak levels is above Nadal, but Nadal at his average levels is above Djoker's average.

Usually these things average out, particularly when players are within 1-2 years of each other age-wise. I'm sure we'll have a pretty clear picture of who had the "greater" career b/w the two in NYC when all is said and done. But the idea that actual matches at the actual venue b/w the two players lack standalone value - well, that I just can't get behind.

It matters in the sense of winning the title, but again its one match-up, tennis is a series of them. Player X has a strength that dominates Player Y, but Player Y is a far better player. Exhibit A: Davydenko vs Nadal, Exhibit B: Nadal vs Federer (we both have Fed ranked higher dont we?)

Context matters, however messy it may be. You may find Novak losing a few more championship matches in a row in New York to be great for his career, since it seems to lend itself to a rockin' winning percentage and lots of ranking points. I think it's a problem for him - that if it played out that way, he'd be just another of those guys who too often choke in the clutch, despite having all the talent in the world.

Why is a finals loss a choke? Again, you make the assumption if he is in the finals, he should be in good enough form to win and if he loses its a problem.

I counter and say what if he is playing far below his normal levels, but its good enough to beat lesser players despite that and reach the finals, but not enough to beat the guy who happens to be playing the best at that particular event?

Is it unreasonable to say Djoker consistently maintained a level of being the #2 player at every slam from FO 2012 - FO 2014 (save AO 2013 when he won), but that everyone else fluctuated up and down and whoever was peaking at that particular slam had a higher level than him? (Nadal FO 12, 13, 14, USO 13 / Murray - Wimb 13, USO 12 / Fed - Wimb 12 / Wawrinka - AO 14)

 

[Backspin1183]

Nadal is much better on hard court than his 7-14 head to head with Novak suggests. He better start beating Novak more times on hard court.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Nadal is much better on hard court than his 7-14 head to head with Novak suggests. He better start beating Novak more times on hard court.

Djokovic just prefers HC over Nadal and for some reason he retreats into his shell when he's against him (save 2013 USO).

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

If Novak wins USO 2014, then he is better on 3 majors/surfaces over Nadal. Just like Fed.

AO - Novak

FO - Nadal

Wimbledon - Novak . 2 majors each, however Novak beat Rafa in a final there.

USO - Novak. 2 majors each. However Novak has probably countless finals and SF.

If Murray finds form, he can also perhaps target this goal. Not really out of the question.

Isn't it an irony that a 14 major winner is still inferior to his contemporaries on 3 of 4 surfaces in terms of performance ?

Thoughts ?

YOU ARE wrong

AO: NOLE 4-0 BEATS 1-2
RG. RAFA 9-0 BEATS 0-2
WIM: RAFA 2-3 BEATS 2-1
USO: RAFA 2-1 BEATS 1-4



RAFA IS SUPERIOR IN 3/4 SLAMS TO NOLE.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Nadal is much better on hard court than his 7-14 head to head with Novak suggests. He better start beating Novak more times on hard court.

Rafa is the best player at RG (obviously) and USO, he has the slight edge in wimbledon with 2 extra finals. Nole is only better in the aussie.

 

[Backspin1183]

Funny how you don't fight this hard for Nadal's case of being greater than Djokovic at Wimbledon when he has 3F to Novak's 1 and they both have 2 titles there whereas at USO Nadal has more...

You see, I knew from the beginning you were a troll. Others were not so convinced and respected you as a poster on here. Now that Novak has FINALLY won a major you've shown your true colors and in doing so have lost the respect that some of the other posters on here had for you.

Well, Djokovic2011 has been on and on about how Novak is better than Rafa or will surpass Rafa since Novak won a Slam title after 16 months. I understand he's happy and all but his disrespect for Nadal has been more vocal than ever. But then I know how this guy is like when Novak falls in Grand Slams :lol:

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Well, Djokovic2011 has been on and on about how Novak is better than Rafa or will surpass Rafa since Novak won a Slam title after 16 months. I understand he's happy and all but his disrespect for Nadal has been more vocal than ever. But then I know how this guy is like when Novak falls in Grand Slams :lol:

This... some nole fans getting wet how the serb wins a slam aftre 1,5 years... while if rafa doesnt win a slam every half year everybody is calling him for retirement, or that he is done ...

Nole is still a mental midget... you could see it in Dimitrov's match and in the first and fourth set of the match vs Fed.

Lol at nole beating old fed meaning something about his confidence..

 

[Backspin1183]

Djokovic just prefers HC over Nadal and for some reason he retreats into his shell when he's against him (save 2013 USO).

I like his Montreal performance against Novak more. Novak had destroyed Gasquet in less than an hour in the previous round and looked scary good. What does Nadal do? He looks all confident wagging his finger and outclasses Novak on a hard court.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I like his Montreal performance against Novak more. Novak had destroyed Gasquet in less than an hour in the previous round and looked scary good. What does Nadal do? He looks all confident wagging his finger and outclasses Novak on a hard court.

Nadal showed he was the best player of 2013 with that performance for sure.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I like his Montreal performance against Novak more. Novak had destroyed Gasquet in less than an hour in the previous round and looked scary good. What does Nadal do? He looks all confident wagging his finger and outclasses Novak on a hard court.

Such a good match. Rafa was hitting the ball soooo confidently. I fully expect beach boy to come out swinging again this summer

 

[Noleberic123]

Well, Djokovic2011 has been on and on about how Novak is better than Rafa or will surpass Rafa since Novak won a Slam title after 16 months. I understand he's happy and all but his disrespect for Nadal has been more vocal than ever. But then I know how this guy is like when Novak falls in Grand Slams :lol:

Even I agree as a djokovic fan, that djokovic2011 has gone over the top with his celebrations. He needs to calm down and realise djokovic isn't the king of the world all of the sudden just because he won Wimbledon. There are other players out there that you need to respect.

 

[The_Order]

Such a good match. Rafa was hitting the ball soooo confidently. I fully expect beach boy to come out swinging again this summer

I think that now that Nadal's lost the #1 ranking it might be a blessing in disguise. He will probably feel less pressure to defend all his points from last year and have a more nothing to lose attitude. Hopefully anyway, that's the impression I had from him last year, that whatever he achieves is a bonus he played like he had nothing to lose and everything to gain just from being out there.

 

[The_Order]

why is that ridiculous?

Are you serious?

Look, the title has the same worth, but I think it is far more impressive what Novak did for example to win AO12 compared to say what Agassi did to win AO03.

The draw for Agassi was so easy, I don't think he even lost a set, maybe one in the earlier rounds at age 32 almost 33. No WAY would he do that these days.

 

[Paul Murphy]

Djok will win it - best HC player in the world

 

[BringBackSV]

True regarding Borg at the AO, but even if you give him credit for his two Masters Titles being equal to slams he still falls shy of Sampras' total and he like Sampras has the hole of never winning at a slam (USO) plus far fewer weeks/years #1 than Sampras/Fed. He doesn't have much going for him to be ranked above those 3.

And its not about it being easy to do on clay, its just when you are saying someone is the greatest ever, to me that means they have to have arguments at more than one place. Nadal would not be among the five best players on any surface besides clay. Fed has an argument for grass GOAT, Indoor Hard GOAT, Fast Hard GOAT, and (at least until Djoker wins another AO) Slow Hard GOAT, and I would say his ranking on an open era clay list would probably match wherever Nadal is ranked on any of those surfaces. True Halle/Queens aren't 1000s but they are the top titles on grass after Wimbledon. I wasn't trying to pull anything by leaving out the clay results, my bad if you thought that. I figured its rather obvious and was implied when I called him the Clay GOAT and said he has dominated the surface.

The fact that he didn't play AO in itself tells you something though, which is my part of my point. Part of the reason why people may not rate him as highly is because of the whole tendency to believe that the latest is the greatest. You can't just fairly compare eras.

Not on clay, not anywhere. I still say that being that dominant on one surface and then finding plenty of success on the others is sufficient.

 

[tennisaddict]

The fact that he didn't play AO in itself tells you something though, which is my part of my point. Part of the reason why people may not rate him as highly is because of the whole tendency to believe that the latest is the greatest. You can't just fairly compare eras.

Not on clay, not anywhere. I still say that being that dominant on one surface and then finding plenty of success on the others is sufficient.

Winning 1 or 2 majors is not same as making 5 plus finals everywhere and winning 4 or more on 3 of them

 

[Djokovic2011]

I like his Montreal performance against Novak more. Novak had destroyed Gasquet in less than an hour in the previous round and looked scary good. What does Nadal do? He looks all confident wagging his finger and outclasses Novak on a hard court.

If only Nole had gone out at the first hurdle at Wimbledon that year. Oh well..............

 

[Noleberic123]

If only Nole had gone out at the first hurdle at Wimbledon that year. Oh well..............

Come on djokovic2011!! djokovic didn't play bad in that match I remember, he just didn't play a great tiebreak. He got tight in those crucial moments. Nadal played a fantastic match, please give credit where it is due.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Come on djokovic2011!! djokovic didn't play bad in that match I remember, he just didn't play a great tiebreak. He got tight in those crucial moments. Nadal played a fantastic match, please give credit where it is due.

I have given credit but the fact is Nadal went out at the first hurdle at Wimbledon last year which enabled him to be fresh for the summer HC swing. Djokovic meanwhile was slogging his guts out for five hours on Centre Court with Del Potro. Go figure.

 

[Noleberic123]

I have given credit but the fact is Nadal went out at the first hurdle at Wimbledon last year which enabled him to be fresh for the summer HC swing. Djokovic meanwhile was slogging his guts out for five hours on Centre Court with Del Potro. Go figure.

I would use that del potro match as an excuse for the murray Wimbledon final loss. but not for the summer HC swing. Nadal is not better on HC obviously but djokovic was still thinking about his net touch at the FO. I believe that net touch ruined him from dominating tennis last year.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I would use that del potro match as an excuse for the murray Wimbledon final loss. but not for the summer HC swing. Nadal is not better on HC obviously but djokovic was still thinking about his net touch at the FO. I believe that net touch ruined him from dominating tennis last year.

Oh I do think there were other factors involved but IMO last year's Wimbledon definitely played a big part in what happened over the summer tournaments.

 

[Noleberic123]

Oh I do think there were other factors involved but IMO last year's Wimbledon definitely played a big part in what happened over the summer tournaments.

name the other factors please?

 

[Chico]

Come on djokovic2011!! djokovic didn't play bad in that match I remember, he just didn't play a great tiebreak. He got tight in those crucial moments. Nadal played a fantastic match, please give credit where it is due.

Nadal only won because of his dirty play and trying to injure Djokovic. That is what distracted Novak and stopped him from winning the third set. The better player on the court lost due to gamesmanship.

 

[Djokovic2011]

name the other factors please?

Like the one you just mentioned[specifically the loss at RG]. I agree that was still playing on his mind when he met Nadal later on that year.

 

[Noleberic123]

Nadal only won because of his dirty play and trying to injure Djokovic. That is what distracted Novak and stopped him from winning the third set. The better player on the court lost due to gamesmanship.

I don't remember this? can you please explain it more thoroughly?

Like the one you just mentioned[specifically the loss at RG]. I agree that was still playing on his mind when he met Nadal later on that year.

Oh I thought u said they were several factors involved?

 

[Djokovic2011]

Oh I thought u said they were several factors involved?

Well I would imagine the 7 month break that Nadal had earlier in the year also had something to do with it!

 

[Noleberic123]

Well I would imagine the 7 month break that Nadal had earlier in the year also had something to do with it!

Yes well theres nothing about that. Had djokovic won that montreal match, do you think he would have won the USO?

 

[Djokovic2011]

Yes well theres nothing about that. Had djokovic won that montreal match, do you think he would have won the USO?

Impossible to know for sure. Anyway that's all in the past now, time to look to the future.

 

[Noleberic123]

Impossible to know for sure. Anyway that's all in the past now, time to look to the future.

Yepp. hopefully he finally wins Cincy and then USO to top off this fantastic year

 

[Magnus]

Nadal is still, on paper, the superior grass player due to extra finals and one Queens title. On the USO, I'd say its a tie, since Nadal has the winning H2H but Nole reached more consistent results and in 2007, 2008 and 2009 would likely be the winner if it wasn't for Roger to stop him. FO is obvious, Nadal is a god there. AO is the only place where Djokovic has the clear advantage over Nadal.

Roger has the advantage over both of them on AO, USO and W. Djokovic has a chance to pass Fed in the AO though, and likely will.

 

[tennisaddict]

For all those who talk about Nadal's hard court achievements, just tell us what he has done at the USO in years other than 2010 and 2013.

It is the same story like at Wimbledon. At wimbledon, Other than the years he made finals, every year he does not even make the second week. Rinse and repeat at USO.

Rafa played 1 great match at USO in last year final , 2010 draw was a major joke.

Contrast this with Novak, who has been a shining star at the USO since he was a baby (year 2007).

Comparing someone with 1 big match win versus somebody who has shone all his career at the USO is a travesty.

 

[clayqueen]

If













.............................

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

For all those who talk about Nadal's hard court achievements, just tell us what he has done at the USO in years other than 2010 and 2013.

It is the same story like at Wimbledon. At wimbledon, Other than the years he made finals, every year he does not even make the second week. Rinse and repeat at USO.

Rafa played 1 great match at USO in last year final , 2010 draw was a major joke.

Contrast this with Novak, who has been a shining star at the USO since he was a baby (year 2007).

Comparing someone with 1 big match win versus somebody who has shone all his career at the USO is a travesty.

I wouldn't go that far, it took Nadal until about 2008 to develop into a true hard court player. Since then his USO results have been:

SF, SF, W, F, DNP, W

And Nole 2011 and Del Po 2009 were two of the highest USO levels we have ever seen probably right below Fed 05/06 so no shame in losing those matches.

This is in contrast to Wimbledon where the dude as a top 5 seed has been losing to guys out of the top 100 on multiple occasions in the first week AFTER winning TWO Wimbledons.

Nadal's consistency level at USO is above his level at Wimbledon, the thing is so is Nole's hence why I'd have Nole ranked above him in both places still if he wins this USO.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Well I would imagine the 7 month break that Nadal had earlier in the year also had something to do with it!

For Rogers? No.

You can't tell me after Nole had a month off from Wimbledon that Nadal's break from months before had an effect on a 3 set see-saw back and forth match on a fast hard court where the level of grinding was sufficiently lower than in most of their matches.

I think Nadal's scheduling helped his FO 2013 win considering their levels were about equal in that match and Nadal had the perfect balance by then of having had a nice long break to recover, plus enough clay matches to play himself into form and that was a brutal 5-set grind fest not a fairly attack oriented 3-setter. Still Nole had his chances in that match and came up short.

Even the Murray match at Wimbledon, I certainly agree he was gassed from the Del Po semi, but I don't think Nole wins that match in any shape. Sure he may have pushed it 5 in perfect conditions, but Murray was on another level in that match.

I give full credit to almost everyone who has beaten Nole at slams, no excuses. The only exception being USO 2012 with Nole being forced to play back to back SF/F and then having to deal with the ridiculous winds in the final and then being forced to play his 8th set in 24 hours by the time that match got to set 5. I think there is a reasonable argument there that all conditions equal Nole would have won that match.

 

[Antonio Puente]

Let's put Djoker on hard courts into proper perspective. Hard courts are his best surface - he's superior to Nadal on the surface.

- So why, even though there are two hard court slams to one clay slam, does Djoker only have half as many slams as Nadal?

- Why, even though there are two hard court slams to one clay slam, does Djoker only have two more hard court slam titles than Nadal?

- Why does he have fewer titles than Nadal at the USO and a losing record against him in finals?

- Why did he lose to Nadal in the Beijing Olympics?

- Why is he only .500 vs. Nadal in hard court slams?

Answer: Because he doesn't bring it at the top level. Hence, the 7-7 record in slam finals. At the top level, he's only marginally better than Nadal. He can bring it all he wants in Shanghai, Beijing and Paris - that's great - but there's a reason why he only has half as many slams as Nadal, even though there are 2 hard court slams to 1 clay slam.

It's also helpful to remember that Wawrinka is closer in slam titles to Djoker than Djoker is to Nadal. In fact, in slams, Stan has the exact same winning percentage vs. Djoker(1-3) as Djoker does vs. Nadal(3-9).

 

[tennisaddict]

^^^ The reason Novak has only half as many slams is on account of 'weak clay era'.

 

[Antonio Puente]

^^^ The reason Novak has only half as many slams is on account of 'weak clay era'.

Yes, Fed did bend over repeatedly.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I would use that del potro match as an excuse for the murray Wimbledon final loss. but not for the summer HC swing. Nadal is not better on HC obviously but djokovic was still thinking about his net touch at the FO. I believe that net touch ruined him from dominating tennis last year.

Don't sink to others level and make pitiful excuses.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Djok will win it - best HC player in the world

Lol hc is not a single surface.... It has a lot of variations... Nole is the best plexicushion player, but rafa would beat him in decoturf 8 out 10 times.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

^^^ The reason Novak has only half as many slams is on account of 'weak clay era'.

Yeah right, And nadal has 5 wimbledon finals vs 3 of rafa... and the 2011-2014 has been much weaker than 2006-2011 when it comes to grasscourts..

Nole is just better in plexicushion thats why he started winning in 2011 over there. If the surface would remain as rebound ace Nole would have only half of the slams at the aussie..

 

[eldanger25]

I disagree, Nole's absolute value increased with the finals appearance. Nadal's absolute value is the same in winning a slam regardless of who he beats in the finals. Ergo its not possible for his comparative value to decrease. Nadal either beats Nole or the man who played well enough to beat Nole. If Nadal won the AO I would not say it was any less impressive to do it over Wawrinka rather than Nole considering the level Wawrinka needed to produce to beat Nole.

I would've preferred a Novak-Nadal match (even though I found their 2012 AO final interminable - I think both guys, and the ATP, have improved time-wise since then). Rather than repeat myself, I'll just echo Pete Sampras here, after his and Agassi's career-altering 1995 US Open final:

"It is always a little bit different when I can beat Andre," Sampras said. "We're one and two in the world, both American, and to beat him makes me feel a little better than if I had beaten somebody else."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/longterm/memories/1995/95ten3.htm

The "both American" part is the only difference here, and I don't find it to meaningfully change the point I'm trying to make.

I'm from Cleveland bro, so I know all about LBJ's failures in 08-10 =P and I would say most people who know football dismiss all of that when ranking people. No serious analysts put Peyton below Eli or having LBJ ranked anything below #1 in the NBA. Its the same stupid argument of saying Michael Jordan being 6-0 in the NBA Finals is so impressive. All it means is he wasn't good enough to reach the finals in the years he lost. If LeBron goes on to finish 6-3 in the NBA finals that is far more impressive than 6-0, but 6-0>5-3.

I hope you guys get him back, would be an epic return. You do agree he got slammed even after the first "lockout" title with the Heat, largely because he was seen as a guy who racked up the stats in the regular season and early playoff rounds, but shrunk during the ECF and NBA finals? Some of that was unfair, but some of it wasn't - we are after all trying to capture "greatness," which should be a difficult standard to meet if it isn't going to be watered down.

I don't think you can use this argument against anyone who has won 7 majors and 45 titles like Nole has. He has proven many times he can come through in the clutch. All his finals numbers show is, even when not playing his top level he is consistent enough to keep reaching finals, unlike Nadal who will flame out in the early rounds if he is not at his normal game. I posted another thread where I mentioned this saying Djokovic at his floor levels and peak levels is above Nadal, but Nadal at his average levels is above Djoker's average.

This is a US Open-specific conversation - he's obviously not generally unclutch on the tour. And in fact, it's not even a US Open-specific comment I'm making - it's a US Open championship match observation.

Novak is endearingly high strung, somebody who can spiral upward with good mental energy and spiral downward with toxic mental energy. I think that makes the last championship Sunday each season, in front of a tough NYC crowd, a rocky affair for him sometimes - particularly against Nadal - who, along with Sampras, is the toughest-minded competitor I've seen.

If he'd won in 2012 against another high strung fellow, this "title bout nerves" argument would be nonsensical - there's no shame in losing 5 set finals to Nadal and Nadal alone. Just like there was no shame in losing a tired match to a slam-tough Murray at SW19 last year. I just don't understand how he got himself into that 2 set hole against AM - and then let him off the hook in the fifth set - even with the fatigue, the wind, etc. He was 25 years old, the fittest player on tour, etc. I just don't see 25 year old Nadal or Federer losing that match, much as I like Murray (whose ceiling is absolutely #1 in the world if he can keep it together).