Nadal at the US Open

Is Nadal the best US Open player of the 2010s?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 43.8%

  • No, Djokovic is

    Votes: 20 41.7%

  • No, it's Andy Murray

    Votes: 1 2.1%

  • Who watches the US Open?

    Votes: 6 12.5%
  • Total voters
    48
  • Poll closed .
Why are people here arguing about what a decade is? :lol:

A decade is 10 years. It's any 10-year stretch you want it to be. 11:22PM on August 18th, 2008, to 11:22PM on August 18th, 2018, would also be a decade.
 
The_18th_Slam said:
Why are people here arguing about what a decade is? :lol:

A decade is 10 years. It's any 10-year stretch you want it to be. 11:22PM on August 18th, 2008, to 11:22PM on August 18th, 2018, would also be a decade.
Click to expand...

True. You can say that for century or year, too.

I have been living here for a year (meaning last 12 months).
I lived in Germany for almost a decade (any consecutive 10 years).
Japan hasn't seen so much rain/heat/cold in a century (means the last 100 years).


This decade -- now this refers to 2010 to 2019. Year ending with a 0. The second decade of this century.



(IIRC there were some people like dear beloved Chico who liked to start from some other number, and would derail any thread which had a mention of the word decade ).
 
BGod said:
I think AT WORST you have to chalk up 3 Finals to equaling 1 Title. The reasoning is because you won 6 matches on three occasions and just couldn't get that 7th win. To compare a 3 year run to someone who won the title but lost two 2nd round matches the records would be 18-3 for the guy who never won and 9-2 for the guy who won once.

I agree when one player never won, but when both have won at least once it eliminates the notion that the losing player couldn't win.

Thus why Lendl is by many ranked above McEnroe at the U.S. Open:

Lendl
3 WINS
8 FINALS

McEnroe
4 WINS
5 FINALS

McEnroe made 3 Semifinals while Lendl had an additional Semifinal. Many recognize that Lendl's 8 consecutive Finals appearance and 3 consecutive wins (something McEnroe also did) was more impressive than McEnroe's simply winning one more title.

In the above case if we judge 3 Finals to be 1 point:

Lendl: 4.65
McEnroe: 4.33

And that's a WORST case. Frankly the ATP judges a Slam Final to be worth 60% of a Finals win. What say you about that?
Click to expand...

I think Lendl and Mac are about even at the Open. Six wins at a given major is grand and applause-worthy. But, ah, that seventh win - championship Sunday (or Monday); the rest of the circus has pulled up stakes and left town, and it's just you and your opponent, both spending the moments before the big match silently measuring the cavernous stillness of the near-empty locker room against the adjacent anticipatory roars and murmurs of a title fight crowd.

Mac won four of 'em, Ivan three. But Lendl's eight straight finals draw him even with Mac for me, even if both men would rather have Mac's record there.
 
Last edited:
Sentinel said:
This decade -- now this refers to 2010 to 2019. Year ending with a 0. The second decade of this century.
Click to expand...

It doesn't and I don't see how you could be confused by something so simple. There is no 0 year. Modern calendars start with 1 BC and then 1 AD, therefore the first set of ten years is 1 AD to 10 AD, inductively, all subsequent patterns are 11 to 20, 21 to 30 ect.

This is like the people who celebrated the dawn of the 21st century on January 1st, 2000.
 
I think Djokovic will stop underperforming at the USO, win a second title, and end this debate soon enough.

The_18th_Slam said:
Why are people here arguing about what a decade is? :lol:
Click to expand...

It's because it is inconsistent to label decades of a calendar as starting from 0, despite the psychological appeal.

It would imply that the first decade of the first millennium was from 1 BC to 9 AD. But the first year of the first decade is by definition 1 AD, so this is contradictory.

The calendar works by referencing the forward year, not how many years have passed (but many people seem to not know this). So 2000 AD is known as "the 2000th year of our lord" and the final year of the second millennium.
 
Last edited:
Steve0904 said:
What doesn't make sense? And who cares what I expect of Djokovic?
Click to expand...
You clearly do, because you seem content to judge other players relative to their achievements while you indict Djokovic for failing to live up to the fictional expectations you have placed on him. No one "chokes" a match. They either win or do not win. That you believe Djokovic to have been more than capable of winning decisive matches that he lost should not play a role in how you compare him to other players as it pertains to US Open performance. Or else I could equally say, I expected huge things from a five-time US Open champion and the fact that Federer failed to consistently make finals this decade leaves me with a "massive disappointment".

That's silly. You judge how good a player is based on his concrete results, not results taken relative to what you may or may not expect of them.
 
Sentinel said:
True. You can say that for century or year, too.

I have been living here for a year (meaning last 12 months).
I lived in Germany for almost a decade (any consecutive 10 years).
Japan hasn't seen so much rain/heat/cold in a century (means the last 100 years).


This decade -- now this refers to 2010 to 2019. Year ending with a 0. The second decade of this century.



(IIRC there were some people like dear beloved Chico who liked to start from some other number, and would derail any thread which had a mention of the word decade ).
Click to expand...

Pretty much this is what I'm saying.Thanks Sentinel.
 
I wanted to go with Rafa, since in his appearances there, he has been the most dominant since 2010. However the question was "best" and you can't BE the best if you weren't THERE to be the best. Sure, Novak didn't make the final last year there, but a Semi is better than not being there. You can't make a splash, make a difference, if you're not there to do it.
 
ledwix said:
I think Djokovic will stop underperforming at the USO, win a second title, and end this debate soon enough.



It's because it is inconsistent to label decades of a calendar as starting from 0, despite the psychological appeal.

It would imply that the first decade of the first millennium was from 1 BC to 9 AD. But the first year of the first decade is by definition 1 AD, so this is contradictory.

The calendar works by referencing the forward year, not how many years have passed (but many people seem to not know this). So 2000 AD is known as "the 2000th year of our lord" and the final year of the second millennium.
Click to expand...

You mean running into better fast HC players?
 
MichaelNadal said:
If the USO and AO were the same, Novak would be the man there too. Nadal is better there, sowwie :)



Agreed.
Click to expand...

Not sure if Nadal is better there tbh, I'd say they're about equal. And one thing's for certain- Djokovic is definitely better than Nadal at the AO, no doubt about it.
 
Inanimate_object said:
Probably. But just as Becker's 3 Wimbledon titles do not tell his proper legacy at the tournament, the same can be said of Djokovic at the US Open.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, if I'd written this there's no way MN would've agreed with me. I think there must be something about my posting style that makes some people on here want to constantly disagree with me no matter what lol.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Not sure if Nadal is better there tbh, I'd say they're about equal. And one thing's for certain- Djokovic is definitely better than Nadal at the AO, no doubt about it.
Click to expand...

He sure is, the same way Rafa is better at the USO without even playing it twice.

Djokovic2011 said:
The funny thing is, if I'd written this there's no way MN would've agreed with me. I think there must be something about my posting style that makes some people on here want to constantly disagree with me no matter what lol.
Click to expand...

I would agree, you'd just never say it.
 
Throwing my two cents into the mix for no good reason.
I couldn't care less when decades are said to start. Nadal is the greatest active player at the USO (apart from Federer.) He is thus better at the USO than Djokovic or Murray.
As far as consistency goes, I agree with D2011's style of thinking to the extent where I believe that flat out decaring Nadal to be a better fast-HC player than Djoker because he has more USO's could be a bit unfair (I'm not saying he isn't.) However while comparing results at a certain moment, Nadal is definitely ahead. A player who wins a tournament once is never greater at that tournament than another player who wins it twice, no matter how far the first player managed to get in all of those years where he didn't win.
Which is why, for now, Djokovic is probably better than Stan on clay in general, but Stan is the greater player at the FO and will remain so until Djokovic wins it himself.
 
MichaelNadal said:
He sure is, the same way Rafa is better at the USO without even playing it twice.



.
Click to expand...

How can a guy with less finals, semifinals and a worse W-L% be better? Nadal may be greater due to his extra title but don't try to make out that he's so much more adept there than Djokovic is. The margins are really slim.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
How can a guy with less finals, semifinals and a worse W-L% be better? Nadal may be greater due to his extra title but don't try to make out that he's so much more adept there than Djokovic is. The margins are really slim.
Click to expand...

Nadal is better at the USO right now man, it's not that serious, just accept it. If Novak wins another title, then things change. Like I said though, it's not the AO, he can well and truly be beaten there by someone playing confident HC tennis.
 
MichaelNadal said:
Nadal is better at the USO right now man, it's not that serious, just accept it. If Novak wins another title, then things change. Like I said though, it's not the AO, he can well and truly be beaten there by someone playing confident HC tennis.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the difference between " better" and " greater". Oh well, never mind.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Now you're being disingenuous. You know fine well if I'd written that post you wouldn't have acknowledged it, even if deep down you did agree with me.
Click to expand...

The only thing that I know fine well is that you still have zero clue what kind of person I am after all this time. I have no vendetta against you, everything is just too fanboyish in your head for you to consider anything else.

Djokovic2011 said:
I don't think you understand the difference between " better" and " greater". Oh well, never mind.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what word you want to use, but Nadal>>Djokovic at the US Open even when skipping it as the defending champ and not playing in 2012. Novak had his chances and a guy that beat him in 2 finals there out of the equation and didn't do enough.
 
Last edited:
Djokovic2011 said:
I don't think you understand the difference between " better" and " greater". Oh well, never mind.
Click to expand...

It's hard to argue semantics like this. For many people "better" and "greater" are indistinguishable, for others, they vary by definitions and reasons specific to their own prejudices and objectives. I myself don't see much a difference between the two terms or why such a distinction is relevant.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Why should I care what kind of a person you are? If you write things I don't agree with I'm gonna let you know, simple as.
Click to expand...

Because you're the only one here that seems to know what I mean better than I do? Had you said Novak's record at the USO doesn't do him any justice there I would fully agree. But you didn't. To you it's about Nadal.

Djokovic2011 said:
I bet MN thinks Wawrinka is now better at RG than Djokovic too. :grin:
Click to expand...

History will think so.
 
Inanimate_object said:
It's hard to argue semantics like this. For many people "better" and "greater" are indistinguishable, for others, they vary by definitions and reasons specific to their own prejudices and objectives. I myself don't see much a difference between the two terms or why such a distinction is relevant.
Click to expand...

I just think its too simplistic to say player A is better than player B at a tournament just because he's won one more title there. I like to look deeper into it than that and for me consistency plays a big part in the equation as well.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
I'd like to think that in years to come people will look at the bigger picture over a decade rather than just what happened in a two week period.
Click to expand...

I'm not really disagreeing. Do I personally think it's fair after Novak has been trying so hard to win all this time? Not really, but Stan just ended up getting it done on his first try. Novak would trade all those Rafa losses for Stan's run.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
I'd like to think that in years to come people will look at the bigger picture over a decade rather than just what happened in a two week period.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works though. Nobody remembers Ivanisevic because of his 3 runner-up placements at Wimbledon. He had to win the title to get the recognition he now receives. These are reasons why Roddick will not be remembered as a particularly notable grass player or why Becker is so often forgotten in the Federer-Sampras-Borg trio of Wimbledon darlings. Djokovic must win Roland Garros to be considered a successful and notable French Open player, just as he must continue to try winning the US Open title to further his status in that regard.

Semis are nothing to scoff at. But lets be honest here, they cannot stand on their own. At the end of the day no one is going to care that someone like Federer has something like 35 slam semifinal appearances. They're going to remember when he won the titles.
 
Inanimate_object said:
That's not how it works though. Nobody remembers Ivanisevic because of his 3 runner-up placements at Wimbledon. He had to win the title to get the recognition he now receives. These are reasons why Roddick will not be remembered as a particularly notable grass player or why Becker is so often forgotten in the Federer-Sampras-Borg trio of Wimbledon darlings. Djokovic must win Roland Garros to be considered a successful and notable French Open player, just as he must continue to try winning the US Open title to further his status in that regard.

Semis are nothing to scoff at. But lets be honest here, they cannot stand on their own. At the end of the day no one is going to care that someone like Federer has something like 35 slam semifinal appearances. They're going to remember when he won the titles.
Click to expand...

This, it's common sense that doesn't require special powers. Nah of course Novak doesn't want a FO trophy :lol:
 
Inanimate_object said:
That's not how it works though. Nobody remembers Ivanisevic because of his 3 runner-up placements at Wimbledon. He had to win the title to get the recognition he now receives. These are reasons why Roddick will not be remembered as a particularly notable grass player or why Becker is so often forgotten in the Federer-Sampras-Borg trio of Wimbledon darlings. Djokovic must win Roland Garros to be considered a successful and notable French Open player, just as he must continue to try winning the US Open title to further his status in that regard.

Semis are nothing to scoff at. But lets be honest here, they cannot stand on their own. At the end of the day no one is going to care that someone like Federer has something like 35 slam semifinal appearances. They're going to remember when he won the titles.
Click to expand...

Lol, I think its safe to say that Djokovic will be more remembered than those other players in years to come.
 
ZiggyStardust said:
He is a better player at RG. He is on the list of RG champions. Nole isn't.

Given his numerous other achievements on clay though, Nole is probably the greater clay-courter.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the greater one but he's certainly better. This is why I hate it when inconsistent headcases win slam tournaments. :roll:
 
vanioMan said:
Maybe he needed only 1 final to become a champion? How many opportunities does Djokovic want? He had great chances in 2011, 2013, 2014 and 2015. Wawrinka had only this year and capitalized.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that Djokovic's great consistency over the years should count for nothing?! :shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
  • Poll Poll
Is the 2013 US Open final the highest standard of this decade???
Replies
40
Views
2K
abmk
abmk
M
There could be 7 former US Open Champions in 2018 US Open Draw - Would this be a record?
Replies
16
Views
942
King No1e
King No1e
Fedeonic
Djokovic's record in US Open finals breakdown
Replies
3
Views
333
Fedeonic
Fedeonic
M
Federer has as many 5 Set Losses in Grand Slam QF and Beyond as Sampras/Nadal/Djokovic
Replies
9
Views
676
timnz
T
M
How many matches do you think he will win after US Open in 2014?
Replies
11
Views
876
tennisaddict
tennisaddict
Back
Top