Most accomplished player at US Open in the open era

[Gizo]

Definitely Connors. He reached the semi-finals there every single year during his prime from 1974-1984, plus 3 more times after his prime in 1985, 1987 and 1991. Plus he had pre-prime and post-prime quarter-final runs there in 1973, 1988 and 1989 (crushing a prime Edberg in R4)

From 1973-1989, the only year that he failed to reached the quarter-finals at the USO was in 1986, when he was past his prime, and when his season was massively hindered by that 10 week suspension following his tantrum during his Lipton SF against Lendl.

He won his 1976 title on har-tru with a thumping semi-final victory over Vilas followed by a final win over Borg who had already won 2 RG titles at that point in his career. The semi-final and quarter-final line-ups at the US Open on har-tru from 1975-1977, were pretty similar to the line-ups you'd expect to see at RG on red clay, with the likes of Borg, Vilas, Orantes, Nastase, Dibbs, Solomon, Kodes, Barrazzutti etc.

The fact that he won a clay court major beating Gerulaitis, Kodes, Vilas and Borg en-route (and going 28-2 during that entire clay court summer) is a huge boost to his general and USO record. However on the flipside he was unlucky with the USO switch to clay from 1975-1977. It's very difficult to imagine him not winning more than 1 USO title during that period had it been played on grass or hard courts.

 

[Gizo]

Regarding Lendl, he is still one of the 5 greatest players at the USO during the open era, but I would also rank McEnroe over him.

Give me a record of 4 titles and 5 finals appearances over 3 titles and 8 final appearances any day. That 1 extra title definitely offsets reaching 3 extra finals IMO.

Lendl did edge their h2h there 3-2 which is plus point in his favour.

Both players won 3 consecutive USO titles, Mac from 1979-1981 and 1985-1987, with Mac winning an additional title in 1984. But IMO 1979-1981 was a stronger era than 1985-1987, and Mac beat a better quality of opponents to win his titles. He recorded multiple victories over Connors and Borg in their primes to win his USO titles (during all 4 of title runs he beat Connors, Borg and/or Lendl in their primes en-route), while Lendl lost his 2 big showdowns against a prime Connors there in 1982-1983.

Mac's achievement to beat Lendl, Connors and Borg (with a 5 set double finals sandwiched in there) to win his 1980 USO title was amazing. Sure Lendl wasn't quite in his prime that year, but he still led Czechoslovakia to Davis Cup glory with some heroics in their SF in Buenos Aires in particular, won 7 official titles years and qualified for the YEC.

 

[BlueHorizon]

Great discussion.

1. Connors. Not even close. Beating two of the top 8 greatest players ever twice in the final. (Borg, Lendl) and Rosewall (top 20)
Semi Finals at 39!
2. Sampras. More finals than Federer. Walked away after his last USO championship. How do you top that?
3. Federer. Jumped the shark at the USO vs Del Potro in 09. A couple points from a 2-0 set margin and choked.
Could have been his 4th 3 grand slam year and six straight USO titles. Then proceeded to choke semi-final match points vs Novak
in 10 and 11. Losing to Robredo in 13. (Avoiding Nadal) Destroyed by Cilic in 14. Break point opportunities squandered vs Novak
in 15 Final.

 

[King No1e]

It's about wasting match points. A close SF loss to a much younger ATG is pretty good per se, like Connors - McEnroe, but wasting double MP two times in a row is appalling, shocking, terrible.

Same with Pete's '94 loss - he was a tiebreaker away from winning in 4. I think such great players ought to be held to high clutchness standards in bad and good form alike. When you were very close to winning and lose, it's always your fault, unless you got injured on court. Only rating clutchness in good form is cheap, since it's a lot easier to be mentally strong when you're feeling great than you're lacking confidence. Which is why Sampras's 1996 escape against Corretja is among the most amazing ever, too (that 2nd serve ace, man!). Can't ignore other chokes nevertheless, though.




It's useful to remember that US Open switched to clay in 1975-77, even if that was Har-Tru clay. Sampras wouldn't've done shiet there; Federer may have, but no telling how many of the three he'd have won, either. Connors was clearly better on hard than clay, red or green. I fancy he would have fared better had the surface switched to hard court immediately, maybe even won all three.

Also, Pete was in prime form in late 1992. I repeat, he swept #1 Courier in the semis. (yes, had a lot of muggery in earlier rounds, but rose to great form in QF & SF, so it's irrelevant) Pre-prime Sampras lost to Courier in straights a year before. USO 92 and AO 93 were big chokes from Pete aginst Stefan. Early Sampras was quite streaky and choked a lot, alternating between being clutch and unclutch.

What? Wasting match points? Nothing was "wasted", especially in 2010. 2010 Novak was on another level. If God had a peak form, that would look like Djokovic in that final set 2010. And nothing Roger could do about the stinging return fired harder than the serve in 2011.

 

[metsman]

Great discussion.

1. Connors. Not even close. Beating two of the top 8 greatest players ever twice in the final. (Borg, Lendl) and Rosewall (top 20)
Semi Finals at 39!
2. Sampras. More finals than Federer. Walked away after his last USO championship. How do you top that?
3. Federer. Jumped the shark at the USO vs Del Potro in 09. A couple points from a 2-0 set margin and choked.
Could have been his 4th 3 grand slam year and six straight USO titles. Then proceeded to choke semi-final match points vs Novak
in 10 and 11. Losing to Robredo in 13. (Avoiding Nadal) Destroyed by Cilic in 14. Break point opportunities squandered vs Novak
in 15 Final.

pre-peak Borg/Lendl and then Borg with severe blister issues. Win over Borg in 76 was legit, but Lendl folded like a cheap suit in 82 and 83, played no better than Roddick did in 06 for example. 39 year old Rosewall playing like garbage, cmon.

 

[BlueHorizon]

pre-peak Borg/Lendl and then Borg with severe blister issues. Win over Borg in 76 was legit, but Lendl folded like a cheap suit in 82 and 83, played no better than Roddick did in 06 for example.

Borg was the 2 seed ..had already won 3 Slams when he faced Connors at the 76 USO Final.(played on Har-Tru) Connors took out the 2 best clay courters
of that era Vilas & Borg in succession to win the 76 title. Borg lost the crucial 3rd set tie break 11-9 and lost in four. In 78 Borg had already won 6 slams.
Yes Borg had a blister..so what? He got thumped and never held a break point.
Lendl...between 81-83 he won 32 titles! , Including two year end championships. He was #2 in the world. And in one of those years he had just beat
Connors in Cincinnati. I recall Lendl was actually favored in at least one of those finals (82,83). He didn't fold, just one great player
beaten by another great player with a superior performance.
Now Rosewall....I'll concede to you on that