Most Dominant US Open Title Runs (Open Era)
- Thread starter Berrettini_Fan
- Start date
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Show pity and compassion my friend. The constant projection of frustration onto others is basically a defense mechanism to avoid acknowledging uncomfortable feelings and traits within themselves. We should show compassion, tolerance and kindness to those who are in this situation. When you see such statements, its akin to a starving man outside a restaurant in cold, raining night, staring ravenously though the window at those enjoying a huge feast, and then saying the food must taste horrible, all the while desperately wanting it for himself. Owning it bud and moving on is difficult when it is you who has to do it. Oh well, hopefully things will get better.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
@MichaelNadal - It has to be said, Nadal always had the best kits.
weakera
Talk Tennis Guru
I like his Melbourne 2022 also.
That was sick. And I initially didn't love the purple AO kit but of course he made it legendary.
weakera
Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal just hit different. As good as the styles were if you put a different player in them it wouldn't be the same. It was the headband, the intensity, the aura, the whole package.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
I agree. He had an innate ability to rock anything he was wearing. Nike certainly hit a gold mine with him.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
He really did
I agree, I'm not sure I loved it at first but it's a slam-winning kit for sure.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
He really did
I agree, I'm not sure I loved it at first but it's a slam-winning kit for sure.
I think for me, only Serena from the womens side had that same energy. I know you might think Venus.
Biotic
Legend
Show pity and compassion my friend. The constant projection of frustration onto others is basically a defense mechanism to avoid acknowledging uncomfortable feelings and traits within themselves. We should show compassion, tolerance and kindness to those who are in this situation. When you see such statements, its akin to a starving man outside a restaurant in cold, raining night, staring ravenously though the window at those enjoying a huge feast, and then saying the food must taste horrible, all the while desperately wanting it for himself. Owning it bud and moving on is difficult when it is you who has to do it. Oh well, hopefully things will get better.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Fair point. I might actually go with Edberg in 1991. Yes, he dropped 2 sets, but they were in the first and second rounds. Then, he rolled through the 4R-F, straight setting the likes of Chang, Lendl, and Courier (in a 6-2, 6-4, 6-0 final). For me, straight setting your way through the last 3-4 rounds despite dropping an early set or two is more dominant than straight setting your way through the opening rounds, but dropping a set in the last 3-4 rounds.
You really do have a weak memory, don't you? This was a post I made to you specifically.
I'm sure you don't need me to explain it further. But please tell me about double standards, when I say 2010, 2015 and 2006 are equal in strength.
Don't confuse me saying what years are strong and weak to the value to titles, they are all the same.
Did any of the ATP event boards reflect an asterisk next to the year calling them weak ?
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Did they do the same for you? I mean surely with all the protesting you do every day, they must be listening, right?
You need to pay attention to what I post, IMO 1995 is best year ever in tennis, and hey, you're going to LOVE this, but this century I think 2009 is best year overall. I have said these things many times. I have always said some years are stronger or better than others, and by saying 2006, 2010 and 2015 IMO are all the same, you can see I am not picking against anyone specifically, I call it as it is.
The difference is, I value all titles equally.
Berrettini_Fan
Hall of Fame
I am surprised @StrongRule voted for 2010 Nadal. Is it because he only had 8 panic attacks during that title run?
Hood_Man
G.O.A.T.
What's funny is I remember lots of people thinking he was going to struggle that year because he was pushed to multiple tiebreaks in the first two rounds.
I'm not making fun of that thinking, it's just amusing when you consider how things turned out.
I asked you a specific question. Did ATP mark an asterisk against the year ?
If not , you don’t have any basis to claim that is weak . And if you think you can do, then don’t defend when others call a particular title run weak.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Flashbacks to some of my Top Spin 4 kit designs. I did rock some goodens.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
You still don't get it. I say I treat all titles equally, there are no inflated titles, which is what you desperately want to say to discredit Djokovic.
Title runs can be weak, but you can only play who is front of you. That doesn't mean the level of play by the winner was poor, keep that mind, Federer in 2006 was playing some of his best tennis, the same as Nadal in 2010 and the same as Djokovic in 2015....again, this in my opinion. The title wins though are all legit. I said Nadal was GOAT in 2022 because I count all titles equally.
The problem with you is, you want to take away the value of the titles from Djokovic, the value doesn't change, a seven time Wimbledon champion is a 7 time Wimbledon champion.
messiahrobins
G.O.A.T.
Yes yes that was brilliant.. I liked the fact the day time and night kits were different. I don't feel Nike are giving Alcaraz good kitsI know which one you mean, but the day one is kinda underrated too
A year comprises of events and titles are what you get from events.
If titles are always legit, then the events are legit and the year that is made up of such events are also legit
So, you cannot call all titles the same value and still call the year weak.
DSH
Bionic Poster
The famous double standard I referred to is common among fans of a team or a particular player, in this case.
Pheasant
Legend
Great post!
Mustard
Bionic Poster
McEnroe's third round match was a walkover (J. Lloyd pulled out), and his quarter final (against Dibbs) saw Dibbs retire with McEnroe 2-1 up in the first set. McEnroe's second round match had been the infamous 4-set match against Nastase, with the umpire disqualifying Nastase, the crowd going nuts (including throwing chairs and debris), and then the referee reinstating Nastase and taking over as the match's umpire.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Nadal got to the final of the 2010 US Open without dropping a set, and had a pretty dominant serve in the tournament. He was also going for the career Grand Slam at the time. It stands out.
King_olaf_the_hairy
Professional
I did look at McEnroe's 1979, but 51 games lost in 16 completed sets (3.2 games per set) wasn't all that impressive to me, relative to the best of the others. And while he won his SF/F in straights, none of the sets were one-sided blow-outs.
However, I'll acknowledge two things: (a) I didn't see the event personally; I'm only going by the numbers which isn't the best approach -- I always defer to those who had first-hand experience. More importantly, (b) we know from JMac's 1984 just how stupefyingly dominant he could be, so maybe I'm just hoisting him by his own petard; the stellar standards of his glory year means that more pedestrian levels of dominance aren't impressive enough in retrospect?
Last edited:
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
And the talk when he lost in 09 was that he would never win the USO
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Titles are legit, because you still play 128 player tournaments, you still need to beat seven players, you still need beat everyone who stands in front of you. You as a player cannot control who is standing in front of you and who isn't.
Trying to devalue titles is a big NO in my book. The aim of the game is to win, hypothetical scenarios are simply that, hypothetical, you can take players and move them from one era to another, but that is fantasy booking, and no one has the authority to say what will or won't happen, no matter how much logic you think you are using.
Also, a player's level is independent of what other players bring, you are either on it or you are not. It is why Federer's 2006 wins are fully legit, even when the year by many in his own fanbase is considered relatively weaker to other years, the same is true for Nadal's 2010 wins, and Djokovic's 2015 wins. The years were relatively weaker to other years they have played, but the titles are still the titles. They did what they did to win, and they is nothing to say that wouldn't be able to do it against tougher players.
Federer's 20 slams are all legit, all of Nadal's 22 slams are legit, and all of Djokovic's 24 slams are legit.
No fan can devalue them. You can crap on these players all you will, but that doesn't change the fact the each slam has equal weight, both for that player's career and historically for the sport.
I have said many times that Federer's peak ended AO 2010, Nadal's peak ended AO 2014 and Djokovic's peak ended RG 2016. Again that is my opinion of them, everyone knows this, I have said this for years. I also say the late 80s and early to mid 90s was the most intense period I have ever seen, I still stand by it....which takes me to my final point, and you know this one very well....there is no real GOAT as you cannot compare eras, different players had different situations. I never needed Djokovic to be the GOAT, I was content back in 2016 when he won RG, and I said for me as a fan, I am happy, his trophy cabinet for me is complete.
You need Federer to be the GOAT, I don't need Djokovic to be the GOAT. I was quite happy for years here saying Federer had the strongest claim, and this while being a Sampras fan, knowing deep inside that Sampras played in a time that had far more dangerous players close to his level. But I value titles equally and it wasn't Federer's fault who he faced, he beat everyone that stepped up for as long as he could to surpass Pete.
messiahrobins
G.O.A.T.
What gives you more satisfaction, Rafa's 14 RGs or 4 USO's? I ask because for years pundits were adamant he would never win the USO, and he then literally owned the USO for a decade taking the baton on from Federer. I mean in terms of silencing the critics, that was surely the biggest F*** you of all time.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Probably the RG.
I’m glad he has 4USOs though, anyone trying to say he was only great on clay is an idiot. Even Novak barely got to 4.
Too long a post without addressing a basic question
How can events be legit but a year that is made up of several events be strong and weak ? Just stay with this simple question instead of going on and on about GOAT. You are constantly consumed by that even though you keep stating that there is no GOAT
Either withdraw your post about weak years and strong years OR accept that CIE and strong and weak titles do exist
Last edited:
messiahrobins
G.O.A.T.
Its a hard one for me. After the ceremony at RG and now he has gone, the magnitude of what he did at RG has really now hit home , especially after the Alcaraz-Sinner match and realising nobody took Rafa to 5 sets at RG in a final, but for many years, perhaps up to 2012 i literally took it for granted he would win RG so for years wasnt pumped up for his matches. The USO i was always hyped as it was my fav event for many years and the one i went to the most in person so Rafa getting those 4 titles was so satisfying, just wish he could have bagged one more and i am still annoyed he played W2022 as pleaded with him on his X feed to skip it and be fresh for USO 2022 to get no.5. That CYGS though was too big a draw! But to match MCenroe and beat Lendl given all his critics was ultra special, but as time marches on i probably like you now have to lean towards RG and 14.
Tennfan123
Legend
How can HC Goat Djokovic not even be in the mix?
Make it make sense!
Make it make sense!
Hitman
Bionic Poster
I've addressed it, it is very clear, but it seems you want to keep going around in circles. What part of, perceived strength or weakness, does not illegitimize any tournament and devalue it is hard to understand?
My stance has never changed. This is the final post for you on this.
Your stance is full of contradiction as it suits.
All Title runs are legitimate yet there are weak years when it suits your agenda. Please don’t talk about strong and weak years
Hitman
Bionic Poster
What's my agenda, when I say that 2006, 2010 and 2015, one year for each of the big 3 where the were the dominant force is the same level of strength, is revealing my agenda?
Don't tell me what to talk about, when you told me that you would stop with the bitterness about Djokovic, and in return you would never hear me saying anything about GOAT, yet a few hours later you were at it again.
No, we don’t need your charity to allot 1 weak or strong year for all players
When you say all titles are legitimate , the corollary is all years are the same
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Dude, just stop.
You are having trouble understanding. ALL titles are legitimate, they ALL count, with EQUAL weight. There are NO asterisks added by any official governing body, whether it is the ITF or ATP.
But some draws are tougher than others. I have posted countless times how I have rated years here.
The problem you have, and your gripe is, that you think titles lose value, according to the perceived strength that you put on. To me, winning is winning, because you beat everyone in your way to the title, and I am not going to say this again...but your own level can be very good, head and shoulders above the others, and it cannot proven one way or another if your winning form can or cannot beat players level from another year. This is why despite the perceived weakness of 2006, Federer was so good, you still tip your hat off.
What you WANT is to tear Djokovic down....if his numbers have no meaning, if there are asterisks galore for you, why are you still so bent out of shape for hours on end on here every day? You should be at complete peace, but you're not, because his records, his titles bother you, and they bother you because you feel their weight. You can deny it all you want, but your unrelenting resentment towards him, I mean you are doing this every freaking day in every single post, how you don't get tired for carrying so much anger for a guy you don't even know personally is quite remarkable.
It is your imagination because for your everything is about Fed vs Djokovic. Just read this thread . The discussion is all about you calling 2010 as a weak year .
If I said the same thing about 2023, you will be furious .
It is simple . If all titles are legitimate, then there are no weak years. That is all to it.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
No, this discussion is actually about me calling out DSH hypocrisy, Read and pay attention. He always says Djokovic USO draws are weak, and I called him out in this thread for having double standards, where he praised Nadal for basically having a draw very similar to what Djokovic had at USO, which why I said to him, a Federer fan might have a say about Djokovic's draw at the USO, but a Nadal fan cannot, because his draws were no better. They were at best equal.
As for for last bit, if that is your conclusion from that, then that is you, but don't put words in my mouth.
My favorite player is Sampras, and I know some of his Wimbledon draws were easier than others, for instance 97 is a lot easier than 93, 94 or 95. That doesn't mean the tournament not legitimate, he won it by being the best player. He is a 7 time champion. What did Agassi say? You just need to be better than the player on the other side of the net....there is a freaking book called Winning Ugly. Winning is winning.
And for you, yes, everything is about Federer vs Djokovic, who heck do you think you're kidding here.
I'm done here.
Similar threads
