Nadal at the US Open

[Krish872007]

Would it be reasonable or unreasonable to claim that Nadal has actually been the most successful US Open player since the start of the decade? Or would the fact that he did not play in 2012 or 2014 count against him in this regard? It'd be good to hear some organised thoughts on this.

Info on Nadal's record since 2010:

2010: Winner, 2011: Final, 2013: Winner in his 3 appearances this decade, with a 20-1 record there.

The other guy who comes close is of course Djokovic:

2010: Final, 2011: Winner, 2012: Final, 2013: Final, 2014: SF (record of 30-4 I think)

In any case, I think if Rafa sticks with his aim of playing out a full season, he will probably have his best Slam result of the year at Flushing Meadows.

 

[GabeT]

Look at the total points earned by both players in the USO. If I understand it correctly this is what the ITF uses to determine their player of the year (and why Nole was the ITF champion in 2013 even though Nadal won two Slams).

I think Nole has 6320 USO points since 2010 and Nadal 5200.

 

[DjokovicForTheCYGS]

Skipping a slam is as good as losing in the first round, so Nadal's results effectively were:
2010 win
2011 final
2012 1R
2013 win
2014 1R

 

[Inanimate_object]

The start of the decade is 2011, not 2010.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

A decade just started.

 

[Inanimate_object]

A decade sure. But The decade is defined by 1 AD to 10 AD then again in infinite sequence. Nadal has missed half the US Opens of this decade.

 

[sbengte]

Yes. He had two of the toughest draws in the history of mankind when he won the USO in 2010 and 2013. Absolute GOAT stuff.

USO 2010 :

Novak Djokovic (whose only win against a top 10 player that year was in the USO SF against Federer, after saving MPs)
Mikhail Youzhny
Fernando Verdasco
Feliciano Lopez
Gilles Simon
Denis Istomin
Teymuraz Gabashvili

USO 2013:

Novak Djokovic
Richard Gasquet
Tommy Robredo
Philipp Kohlschreiber
Ivan Dodig
Rogerio Dutra Silva
Ryan Harrison

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Another decade just started. 2010, 2011, my @nus, among other things.


It's an irrelevance. It doesn't matter if Nadal is the best US Open player of the 2010s or the 2011s or whatever. Players can be judged on a case by case basis without this bizarre fetish of forcing them into arbitrary temporal structures.

A player will peak when they peak. They aren't aiming to peak so that they can become the best player of X decade.

 

[Krish872007]

Note that I did not say he was the best player of the decade, seeing as the decade has not finished. I was just wondering if a case could be made to suggest that since 2010, he is the most successful/accomplished US Open player.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Yes. He had two of the toughest draws in the history of mankind when he won the USO in 2010 and 2013. Absolute GOAT stuff.

USO 2010 :

Novak Djokovic (whose only win against a top 10 player that year was in the USO SF against Federer, after saving MPs)
Mikhail Youzhny
Fernando Verdasco
Feliciano Lopez
Gilles Simon
Denis Istomin
Teymuraz Gabashvili

USO 2013:

Novak Djokovic
Richard Gasquet
Tommy Robredo
Philipp Kohlschreiber
Ivan Dodig
Rogerio Dutra Silva
Ryan Harrison

Vicious draws. Is Nadal a 14 Slam wonder? After all, Stan is apparently a 2 Slam wonder, but his wins are probably more valuable than those two US Open wins from Nadal. Stan's real Slam count is 0 and Nadal's is 12.

Note that I did not say he was the best player of the decade, seeing as the decade has not finished. I was just wondering if a case could be made to suggest that since 2010, he is the most successful/accomplished US Open player.

In terms of asking if Nadal is the best player at the US Open since 2010, maybe — but so what. Really, I'm asking you sincerely... so what?

We're in 2015 now. I think it's clear that in recent years, Nadal has tended to excel at the US Open, which is why I think he shouldn't be written off yet this year.

 

[Krish872007]

In terms of asking if Nadal is the best player at the US Open since 2010, maybe — but so what. Really, I'm asking you sincerely... so what?

We're in 2015 now. I think it's clear that in recent years, Nadal has tended to excel at the US Open, which is why I think he shouldn't be written off yet this year.

Yes, that last part is what I'm indirectly getting at. I'm afraid I didn't pose the correct question for this.

Out of interest (Nadal's not my favourite by the way), how might you see him doing at the US Open this year?

 

[Inanimate_object]

Note that I did not say he was the best player of the decade, seeing as the decade has not finished. I was just wondering if a case could be made to suggest that since 2010, he is the most successful/accomplished US Open player.

Would it be reasonable or unreasonable to claim that Nadal has actually been the most successful US Open player since the start of the decade?

Since the start of the decade there have been 4 US Opens and 4 different men's champions. If titles amount to success, Nadal has been no more successful than Cilic, Murray or Djokovic. If deep runs are taken into consideration, clearly Djokovic is the best US Open player of the decade. And Nadal's inability to make it to the US Open is an indictment, not an excuse.

 

[R_Federer]

Moot point. Ship has sailed for Nadal and Djoko at US Open so at the end of the decade it will be someone else who will be the best at US Open for the decade.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Yes, that last part is what I'm indirectly getting at. I'm afraid I didn't pose the correct question for this.

Out of interest (Nadal's not my favourite by the way), how might you see him doing at the US Open this year?

It's just really hard to say until the HC season rolls around, but it's realistic to think that he could find form in time for the US Open based on the very fact that it's been by far his second best Major over the last several years and that it might offer him enough time to turn around enough of his misgivings to be a major force there. If he could turn his game (tactics, fitness, focus, other things) around in time for Wimbledon to even reach the final, I'd honestly be flabbergasted.

Obviously, many think that Nadal is totally finished at Slam level, but I don't.

 

[Krish872007]

Since the start of the decade there have been 4 US Opens and 4 different men's champions. If titles amount to success, Nadal has been no more successful than Cilic, Murray or Djokovic. If deep runs are taken into consideration, clearly Djokovic is the best US Open player of the decade. And Nadal's inability to make it to the US Open is an indictment, not an excuse.

Well I don't really disagree with what you said regarding Djokovic, as I think credit should be given for his consistency at the event - and he has won it after all.

 

[Algo]

Not the start of a decade debate again...

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[tennis_commentator]

When you lift the USO trophy twice over the gymnast, you own the gymnast.
Nadal owns the gymnast in New York, and nothing can be done about that.

 

[Sysyphus]

A decade sure. But The decade is defined by 1 AD to 10 AD then again in infinite sequence. Nadal has missed half the US Opens of this decade.

Jesus, don't go full Chico. You just went full Chico.


A decade is meant to refer to : "a period of 10 years; especially : a 10-year period beginning with a year ending in 0". When we speak of "this decade" it ain't a period that started in 2011..

:mrgreen:

 

[tennisaddict]

Decade starts from 2010. Irrespective of that, Rafa has the most achievements at USO this decade.

 

[Chanwan]

Another decade just started. 2010, 2011, my @nus, among other things.


It's an irrelevance. It doesn't matter if Nadal is the best US Open player of the 2010s or the 2011s or whatever. Players can be judged on a case by case basis without this bizarre fetish of forcing them into arbitrary temporal structures.

A player will peak when they peak. They aren't aiming to peak so that they can become the best player of X decade.

Are you really sure about that? ;-)

 

[Cenarius]

The start of the decade is 2011, not 2010.

I'm gonna make it easy for you.

2 number of the millenium

0 number of the century

1 number of the decade

0 number of year

The third digit change from 2009 to 2010 therefore got it.

 

[Inanimate_object]

I'm gonna make it easy for you.

2 number of the millenium

0 number of the century

1 number of the decade

0 number of year

The third digit change from 2009 to 2010 therefore got it.

Whoops! I forgot we are still in the 20th century!

 

[Tenez!]

I'm gonna make it easy for you.

Nah tennis addict is spot on.
It come from a fun fact actually: there is no year 0 in the Christian calendar. Goes straight from -1 to 1, you can Wiki it.

So 2nd decade of the millenium is 2011-2020.

 

[chicagodude]

I'm gonna make it easy for you.

2 number of the millennium

0 number of the century

1 number of the decade

0 number of year

The third digit change from 2009 to 2010 therefore got it.

There was no year 0. At the end of of the first year, they started year 2. Thus, the first decade was finished when the year 10 finished-->the decade started with the start of 2011. Now, with that said, colloquially, when we talk about e.g. the 90's, we mean all years starting with a 9, with the 00's all years starting with 200 and with the 10's all years starting with 201. So arewe talking about THE 2010's decade (which is from 2011-2020) or the colloquial 2010's (which is 2010-2019)?

 

[BGod]

No. Skipping 2 of 5 events doesn't get you a pass.

Andy Murray
WIN
SEM
QTR
QTR
3R

Is on par with Nadal's performance of W-F-W to me. My breakdown is this:

W=W
A title is a title, we're going to ignore competition here.

W>SEM
Nadal gets another title while Murray's 2nd best performance was a semifinal.

F>QTR
Obviously as above, this is easy to see.

QTR>NA
Simply put, Murray won 4 rounds and Nadal didn't show up.

3R>NA
Not as severe as above but 2 matches counts for something. At least his loss was to Wawrinka, in all fairness.

Really the breakdown comes out to 2 for Murray, 2 for Nadal and one draw. If we go further we see Nadal having 2 additional victories in his 2nd title and his Finals appearance than Murray, but Murray has 4 wins to 0 and 2 wins to 0 margins as well. Now, I will say that had Murray not won a title I would not be arguing this but since he did, that to me makes the argument of equal performance this decade.

Another comparison would be as so:

Player A
WIN
FINAL
FINAL
QTR
QTR

Player B
WIN
SEM
SEM
SEM
SEM

The total win-loss record for both players is 27-5 and both won a title once. The fact Player A made two additional Finals does not to me equate to him being better, because really the only difference is an extra match win which could have come from inferior opponents as oppose to meeting the champion in the semifinal.

 

[tennis_commentator]

^ Let's face it, winning TWO US Open is far better than only winning ONE.
Finals or semi-finals don't even come close to making a difference.
The fact that Nadal won TWO US Opens while not playing in 2012 and 2014 makes Nadal look even more impressive than if he played those years actually, because it indicates that he may have won THREE or FOUR, such is his strike rate since 2010.

 

[Down_the_line]

Why are we talking about Nadal at the US Open right now? Folks, we've got Wimbledon right around the corner.

Or is it really that difficult to cope during a point in the year when Nadal isn't as relevant?

 

[Djokovic2011]

^ Let's face it, winning TWO US Open is far better than only winning ONE.
Finals or semi-finals don't even come close to making a difference.
The fact that Nadal won TWO US Opens while not playing in 2012 and 2014 makes Nadal look even more impressive than if he played those years actually, because it indicates that he may have won THREE or FOUR, such is his strike rate since 2010.

You have to admit though, if you were the manager of a huge enterprise, you'd be extremely hesitant about taking Nadal on as an employee. Dependability hasn't exactly been his forte in recent years. :-?

 

[Inanimate_object]

There was no year 0. At the end of of the first year, they started year 2. Thus, the first decade was finished when the year 10 finished-->the decade started with the start of 2011. Now, with that said, colloquially, when we talk about e.g. the 90's, we mean all years starting with a 9, with the 00's all years starting with 200 and with the 10's all years starting with 201. So arewe talking about THE 2010's decade (which is from 2011-2020) or the colloquial 2010's (which is 2010-2019)?

The most useful contribution to this thread!

 

[Fedeonic]

Not the start of a decade debate again...

For you, when the decade starts?
For me starts in 2010 and ends in 2019, ATP website put a series of articles in 2009 resumed all the best of the best of the 2000s decade, they named Federer the player of the decade, followed by Nadal, Agassi, Hewitt and Roddick if I remember correctly.

 

[BGod]

^ Let's face it, winning TWO US Open is far better than only winning ONE.
Finals or semi-finals don't even come close to making a difference.
The fact that Nadal won TWO US Opens while not playing in 2012 and 2014 makes Nadal look even more impressive than if he played those years actually, because it indicates that he may have won THREE or FOUR, such is his strike rate since 2010.

You then get into the Jordan debate, where he was 6-0 in Finals but lost in earlier rounds on several occasions. Except that Nadal isn't 6-0 in U.S. Open Finals, he's 2-1.

I and others don't feel the same about Slam titles being this much of a difference when looking at CONSISTENCY. In which case you have a year where Andy Murray wins 4 matches and gets to the quarterfinals and Nadal wins 0 because he's not there. That season in terms of consistency levels off his 2nd title and Finals appearance as Murray didn't exactly lose in 2nd round matches those seasons.

Meanwhile, Djokovic going F-W-F-F-SM is undoubtedly tops for this decade.

 

[bullfan]

The start of the decade is 2011, not 2010.

2010, but nice try!

 

[maruzo]

Quality of a grand slam win? Really?

It's laughable how you guys actually think you have the player's strength and abilities figured out.

 

[Cenarius]

No you are wrong guys by your logic 1990 would be part of the 80's.

 

[RF-18]

decade started 2011. So Djokovic is the best at USO of this decade so far.

 

[tennis_commentator]

You then get into the Jordan debate, where he was 6-0 in Finals but lost in earlier rounds on several occasions. Except that Nadal isn't 6-0 in U.S. Open Finals, he's 2-1.

I and others don't feel the same about Slam titles being this much of a difference when looking at CONSISTENCY. In which case you have a year where Andy Murray wins 4 matches and gets to the quarterfinals and Nadal wins 0 because he's not there. That season in terms of consistency levels off his 2nd title and Finals appearance as Murray didn't exactly lose in 2nd round matches those seasons.

Meanwhile, Djokovic going F-W-F-F-SM is undoubtedly tops for this decade.

Well I'm glad I'm not Djokovic/Murray, that is for sure.
Djokvoic has 8 slams (and only ONE US Open) and no career grand slam, and Murray has 2 slams (and only ONE US Open).
Consistency failed to get those guys to Nadal's 14 slams and career grand slam.

 

[Cenarius]

decade started 2011. So Djokovic is the best at USO of this decade so far.

Wrong it started in 2010.and Nads is more succesful UO player with two titles(2010 and 2013)to Djoko's 1 (2011).

 

[BringBackSV]

At the USO Rafa > Novak > Murray at this point.

 

[RF-18]

Wrong it started in 2010.and Nads is more succesful UO player with two titles(2010 and 2013)to Djoko's 1 (2011).

No the decade ended in 2010. 2011 is the start of decade.

 

[Inanimate_object]

No you are wrong guys by your logic 1990 would be part of the 80's.

You realize there is no 0 AD correct? Therefore to initialize a sequence of 10 years, it would have to be 1 AD - 10 AD, then 11 AD - 20 AD and so on.

 

[Steve0904]

Pretty obvious to me. He's got 2 titles and everybody else has 1. He even made the final in 2011 and he beat Djokovic directly in the final for his 2 wins. It's a no brainer.

 

[Steve0904]

Another decade just started. 2010, 2011, my @nus, among other things.


It's an irrelevance. It doesn't matter if Nadal is the best US Open player of the 2010s or the 2011s or whatever. Players can be judged on a case by case basis without this bizarre fetish of forcing them into arbitrary temporal structures.

A player will peak when they peak. They aren't aiming to peak so that they can become the best player of X decade.

I would also add this. I only answered the thread to be polite.

 

[Steve0904]

I would also say in this case that I wouldn't value overall consistency that highly. Djokovic has choked a couple USO's away to be brutally honest, and that's what really turns me off his consistency. He's had chances to win more titles, even been favoured to do so, but he just hasn't and he can only blame himself. He had his chances in 2012 and 2013 (that's the one that closes the door entirely for me on this "debate"). The reason for that is because it is arguable that despite warm up results Djokovic was still favoured to win that USO. I honestly thought that. I was still pegging Djokovic to win that match and was mildly surprised when he didn't, and I don't think I was the only one. And the way he played was just not good enough. A terrible first set and a tank job of a 4th. Nadal showed the champions quality in that third set and Djokovic did not.

2014 is another nail in the proverbial coffin for Djokovic IMO. A SF is a great result, but let's be honest, it was a massive disappointment considering (almost) everybody on god's green earth had him pegged to win that one too. I honestly don't care that Nadal hasn't played 2 editions since 2010. There are just too many disappointments on the Djokovic CV to this point for the expectations we should hold him to.

Hence the poll is an absolute joke for having 9 votes for Djokovic. :lol: It's Nadal, and no else. Not Djokovic, not Murray, not the man on the friggin moon.

 

[Inanimate_object]

I would also say in this case that I wouldn't value overall consistency that highly. Djokovic has choked a couple USO's away to be brutally honest, and that's what really turns me off his consistency. He's had chances to win more titles, even been favoured to do so, but he just hasn't and he can only blame himself. He had his chances in 2012 and 2013 (that's the one that closes the door entirely for me on this "debate"). The reason for that is because it is arguable that despite warm up results Djokovic was still favoured to win that USO. I honestly thought that. I was still pegging Djokovic to win that match and was mildly surprised when he didn't, and I don't think I was the only one. And the way he played was just not good enough. A terrible first set and a tank job of a 4th. Nadal showed the champions quality in that third set and Djokovic did not.

2014 is another nail in the proverbial coffin for Djokovic IMO. A SF is a great result, but let's be honest, it was a massive disappointment considering (almost) everybody on god's green earth had him pegged to win that one too. I honestly don't care that Nadal hasn't played 2 editions since 2010. There are just too many disappointments on the Djokovic CV to this point for the expectations we should hold him to.

Hence the poll is an absolute joke for having 9 votes for Djokovic. :lol: It's Nadal, and no else. Not Djokovic, not Murray, not the man on the friggin moon.

That doesn't make sense. You are overlaying what Djokovic HAS done with what you expect him to have done. The question is who is the best player at the US Open in the last while. It is a comparison between real achievements and real players, not fictional expectations of what Djokovic should have/would have accomplished had he not choked away a few matches.

 

[BGod]

I would also say in this case that I wouldn't value overall consistency that highly. Djokovic has choked a couple USO's away to be brutally honest, and that's what really turns me off his consistency. He's had chances to win more titles, even been favoured to do so, but he just hasn't and he can only blame himself. He had his chances in 2012 and 2013 (that's the one that closes the door entirely for me on this "debate"). The reason for that is because it is arguable that despite warm up results Djokovic was still favoured to win that USO. I honestly thought that. I was still pegging Djokovic to win that match and was mildly surprised when he didn't, and I don't think I was the only one. And the way he played was just not good enough. A terrible first set and a tank job of a 4th. Nadal showed the champions quality in that third set and Djokovic did not.

2014 is another nail in the proverbial coffin for Djokovic IMO. A SF is a great result, but let's be honest, it was a massive disappointment considering (almost) everybody on god's green earth had him pegged to win that one too. I honestly don't care that Nadal hasn't played 2 editions since 2010. There are just too many disappointments on the Djokovic CV to this point for the expectations we should hold him to.

Hence the poll is an absolute joke for having 9 votes for Djokovic. :lol: It's Nadal, and no else. Not Djokovic, not Murray, not the man on the friggin moon.

Well then how do you view Patrick Rafter?

Won back to back U.S. Opens, then lost a 5 set first round match to eventual Semi-Finalist Pioline going for the Threepeat. Didn't make it out of the 3rd round actually except for 3 times in total. Those two victories and a 4th round loss to Pete Sampras.

Meanwhile, Lleyton Hewitt made 7 consecutive quarters or better at the U.S. Open, including 5 Semifinals, 2 Finals but only 1 Win.

 

[Steve0904]

Well then how do you view Patrick Rafter?

Won back to back U.S. Opens, then lost a 5 set first round match to eventual Semi-Finalist Pioline going for the Threepeat. Didn't make it out of the 3rd round actually except for 3 times in total. Those two victories and a 4th round loss to Pete Sampras.

Meanwhile, Lleyton Hewitt made 7 consecutive quarters or better at the U.S. Open, including 5 Semifinals, 2 Finals but only 1 Win.

It's not about how I view Rafter really. The thread is about condensing results into a certain time frame and picking which one is best. The equivalent comparison between Hewitt and Rafter is from 1997 to 2001. The same amount of years as 2010-2014. Therefore Hewitt's extra SF's and QF's don't get counted in this comparison.

As such, Rafter is the more successful player in that 5 year frame. Besides that, I would take the extra title that Rafter has at the USO anyway. In these tournament comparisons the ultimate goal is to win them, not lose in the QF's, SF's or Finals.

 

[Steve0904]

That doesn't make sense. You are overlaying what Djokovic HAS done with what you expect him to have done. The question is who is the best player at the US Open in the last while. It is a comparison between real achievements and real players, not fictional expectations of what Djokovic should have/would have accomplished had he not choked away a few matches.

What doesn't make sense? And who cares what I expect of Djokovic? Nadal has 2 titles (2010, 2013) Djokovic has 1 (2011). On top of that Nadal has a final (2011) and beat Djokovic in the final for both his USO titles. Therefore Nadal has been better from 2010-2014. It's not complicated.

 

[bullfan]

Are you really sure about that? ;-)

Why isnt the poll public?

 

[BGod]

It's not about how I view Rafter really. The thread is about condensing results into a certain time frame and picking which one is best. The equivalent comparison between Hewitt and Rafter is from 1997 to 2001. The same amount of years as 2010-2014. Therefore Hewitt's extra SF's and QF's don't get counted in this comparison.

As such, Rafter is the more successful player in that 5 year frame. Besides that, I would take the extra title that Rafter has at the USO anyway. In these tournament comparisons the ultimate goal is to win them, not lose in the QF's, SF's or Finals.

But Tennis isn't the NBA or NHL. I agree that making the Final and more importantly winning it is more crucial than consistently making the Final 4 and losing.

However in Tennis, you need 7 matches to win it all, 6 to get to the Final and 5 for the Semifinal. As such, it takes a lot of work to get to the Final 4. It's subjective how you count it, but IF both players have a title to start, I WILL look at consistency. Being a huge Rafter fan, I'd pick Hewitt as the greater U.S. Open performer for his career than Rafter's two runs.

But back to the topic with regards to time-frames, I guess I know the answer but will post this comparison anyway:

Wimbledon 2008-2014
Nadal: W, W, F, 4RD, 2RD, 1RD, N/A
Murray: W, F, SF, SF, SF, QF, QF

I'm assuming you just go 2-1 for Nadal?