Nadal at the US Open

[The_18th_Slam]

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.

Maybe Djokovic just needed the finalist points to safeguard his #1 ranking in 2012, 2014, and 2015? Maybe he didn't need the title? He's also made more money at the French Open than Wawrinka, so maybe he didn't need more money, either?

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Not to mention 4 semifinals and 7 Masters 1000s.

A good Samaritan once suggested Masters aren't big titles, and another good Samaritan agreed with him. So Masters don't count

 

[Djokovic2011]

I say that winning the title counts for more.

What's the good of making all those SFs and Fs if you can't win them.

That could arguably make Wawrinka the greater RG player but not the better clay courter overall. What about all of Djokovic's Masters titles? You can't just sweep them under the carpet like they don't exist. Jeez, some posters on this forum........

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I say that winning the title counts for more.

What's the good of making all those SFs and Fs if you can't win them.

So where do you draw the line? If Djokovic made 4 more French Open finals and lost every time, would he still be a worse French Open player than Gaudio?

 

[The_18th_Slam]

That could arguably make Wawrinka the greater RG player but not the better clay courter overall. What about all of Djokovic's Masters titles? You can't just sweep them under the carpet like they don't exist. Jeez, some posters on this forum........

Wait, weren't you laughing at Federer and his ranking despite his two Masters titles? Why are you using them as an argument now? :lol:

 

[mistik]

So you're saying that Djokovic's great consistency over the years should count for nothing?! :shock:

Djokovic consistency will remembered by the real tennis fans but dont expect average Joe on the street who occasionally watch tennis remember that.

 

[Djokovic2011]

So where do you draw the line? If Djokovic made 4 more French Open finals and lost every time, would he still be a worse French Open player than Gaudio?

Lol, do you honestly expect him to say "no"?

 

[vanioMan]

That could arguably make Wawrinka the greater RG player but not the better clay courter overall. What about all of Djokovic's Masters titles? You can't just sweep them under the carpet like they don't exist. Jeez, some posters on this forum........

I never made claims for Wawrinka being a better claycourter. Djokovic is obviously the better one. Wawrinka is greater at RG.

So, quoting yourself for "putting words in my mouth"

Jeez, some posters on this forum........

Read my posts more carefully next time.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Wait, weren't you laughing at Federer and his ranking despite his two Masters titles? Why are you using them as an argument now? :lol:

I wasn't even being serious in that thread T18S. :wink:

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Djokovic consistency will remembered by the real tennis fans but dont expect average Joe on the street who occasionally watch tennis remember that.

Who cares what the average Joe remembers? If we're Tennis aficionados, shouldn't our analysis be a little more sophisticated than that of an average Joe's?

 

[mistik]

That could arguably make Wawrinka the greater RG player but not the better clay courter overall. What about all of Djokovic's Masters titles? You can't just sweep them under the carpet like they don't exist. Jeez, some posters on this forum........

Who cares about being greater on clay when you cant win the historic and biggest clay title which is RG .

 

[MichaelNadal]

DJ11 I agree that Novak is better on clay. I'm just talking about RG. If they both had 1 title, Novak would be better there too.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I never made claims for Wawrinka being a better claycourter. Djokovic is obviously the better one. Wawrinka is greater at RG.

So, quoting yourself for "putting words in my mouth"



Read my posts more carefully next time.

It was you who didn't read properly lol. You disagreed with me just a few moments ago when I said Djokovic is the better clay court player than Wawrinka. :lol:

 

[Djokovic2011]

DJ11 I agree that Novak is better on clay. I'm just talking about RG. If they both had 1 title, Novak would be better there too.

Djokovic is better than him there anyway, come on now.

 

[vanioMan]

It was you who didn't read properly lol. You disagreed with me just a few moments ago when I said Djokovic is the better clay court player than Wawrinka. :lol:

I don't see where that happened. If you are talking about this:

So you're saying that Djokovic's great consistency over the years should count for nothing?! :shock:

I thought you meant his consistency in Paris.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Who cares about being greater on clay when you cant win the historic and biggest clay title which is RG .

Because some people realise than tennis isn't only played during two weeks of the year.

 

[mistik]

Who cares what the average Joe remembers? If we're Tennis aficionados, shouldn't our analysis be a little more sophisticated than that of an average Joe's?

Yes but average Joe acts like they know everything. I never forget watching RG final in a hotel lobby and they thought it is Wimbledon (despite commie zillion times said FO final ) and Djokovic never won Wimbledon. İt happened in 2012.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I don't see where that happened. If you are talking about this:



I thought you meant his consistency in Paris.

I'm talking about post #136

 

[NatF]

Djokovic is better than him there anyway, come on now.

Djokovic has the better consistency but Wawrinka the higher peak. I don't think it's black and white which is better.

 

[mistik]

Because some people realise than tennis isn't only played during two weeks of the year.

For me Djokovic miles ahead of Wawrinka as a player regardless of surface. I wouldnt call Wawrinka truly great player by any means.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Djokovic has the better consistency but Wawrinka the higher peak. I don't think it's black and white which is better.

True, but IMO better consistency means better overall when comparing two player's resumes at the same tournament.

 

[vanioMan]

I'm talking about post #136

Post #136 is this:

I bet MN thinks Wawrinka is now better at RG than Djokovic too. :grin:

Well, of course he is.

So I still don't see what you're talking about.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Djokovic is better than him there anyway, come on now.

Seriously, if anyone out there thinks 1 title + 1 QF is a more balanced resume than 3 RU, 4 SF and 2 QF, I wanna know what they're smoking 'cos I want some of it for myself.

Sour Diesel

 

[Djokovic2011]

Seriously, if anyone out there thinks 1 title + 1 QF is a more balanced resume than 3 RU, 4 SF and 2 QF, I wanna know what they're smoking 'cos I want some of it for myself.

 

[NatF]

True, but IMO better consistency means better overall when comparing two player's resumes at the same tournament.

Not an unreasonable position but when one guy has the title and the other doesn't you're bound to have detractors and rightly so IMO.

Djokovic has been better at the FO every year except 2015, that does count for something. On the other hand when Stan was at his best he cleaned shop and the ultimate goal is winning the title.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Post #136 is this:




So I still don't see what you're talking about.

Read post #174.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Sour Diesel

But you have to admit that its not an unreasonable thing to say. Those stats are the facts.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Not an unreasonable position but when one guy has the title and the other doesn't you're bound to have detractors and rightly so IMO.

Djokovic has been better at the FO every year except 2015, that does count for something. On the other hand when Stan was at his best he cleaned shop and the ultimate goal is winning the title.

I just don't think one good year should immediately eradicate many other years of great consistency.

 

[NatF]

I just don't think one good year should immediately eradicate many other years of great consistency.

Neither do I, which is why I think it's debate with two sides. You're selling it short by calling it a good year - a SF is a good year, a final is a great year, a title is something more <insert your own superlative>.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Neither do I, which is why I think it's debate with two sides. You're selling it short by calling it a good year - a SF is a good year, a final is a great year, a title is something more <insert your own superlative>.

Call it what you want, my point still stands.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I just don't think one good year should immediately eradicate many other years of great consistency.

No one is arguing against this though. I've already said even I agree. But as long as Stan has a FO title and Novak doesn't, it's also unfair to say Stan isn't superior there. If Rafa had no AO titles and Murray had one, would all Nadals close calls there matter to you over Stan or Andy actually winning it? They would rightfully be considered better there.

 

[NatF]

Call it what you want, my point still stands.

As do everyone else's

Bit sad that you devalue winning titles so much just because Djokovic hasn't been great at sealing the deal.

 

[Djokovic2011]

No one is arguing against this though. I've already said even I agree. But as long as Stan has a FO title and Novak doesn't, it's also unfair to say Stan isn't superior there. If Rafa had no AO titles and Murray had one, would all Nadals close calls there matter to you over Stan or Andy actually winning it? They would rightfully be considered better there.

Then call him the greater player at RG but not the better one.

 

[gcollins]

Some of the arguments being made here are just insane. First, Djokovic is the best player of the US open in the 2010's, because if you're not THERE you can't be the best. Consistency counts for something, and being absent twice just doesn't cut the mustard. Second, how does ANYONE figure that Stan is better than Novak on clay OR at RG?

Novak Djokovic has made the finals 3 times, and twice was stopped by the greatest clay court player ever. (I'm going to stop saying arguably, because, really?) Stan did beat him, but if you think he'd do it 6/10 times, you're deluding yourself.

The Stan fans are right about one thing for sure though. History only remembers the winner. Heck, in tennis' case, the general public only usually remembers Wimbledon and US Open winners. Fans who care enough to dissect the little things on forums will of course remember 3 Finals, though.

What's always bothered me when I sit down and look at greatness, is how much the public opinion of a career changes with a single win or loss. Say Fed never got his French. To a lot of people, he'd just be Sampras 2.0 (majors wise.)

I think it's a shame that people might look back on Novak as the guy who just couldn't finish at the French... when IMO he's the second best clay-courter in the game at the moment, (and 3rd to Fed when Fed was still a threat on clay.)

It really speaks volumes about how much Nadal's career has played spoiler to other people... and how great he is.. because if Nadal never exists... Fed likely has at LEAST 3 FO trophies... and Djokovic ends up with at least 2...

If Nadal never exists... the conversation isn't "who is the greatest of all time..." but rather... "is Federer literally the best player of all time on every single surface individually." I took the time... Fed's been stopped by Nadal FIVE times at RG... each time becoming the eventual champion.

Sorry to go off of so many tangents... discussing my thoughts sometimes leads to totally unrelated things that I just find fascinating.

 

[ZiggyStardust]

Then call him the greater player at RG but not the better one.

Isn't this greater / better business just a matter of semantics? No one can quantify this anyway.
Stan won RG, Nole didn't. He is the more successful player at RG. Once Nole wins a title he will be.
Just like Murray will always be a greater/better/more successful Wimbledon player than Roddick. In retrospect, no one cares.
I largely agree with your "tennis is not all slams" position. Thus I count Nole's clay masters as outweighing Stan's RG.
But I cannot agree that player A who has never won a tournament, is "better" at that tournament than player B who beat him to win it.

 

[RF-18]

LMAO at the armchair critics. It is really amusing hearing how some forum members on a internet forum can treat a slam finalist like it is some low moment for him.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Some of the arguments being made here are just insane. First, Djokovic is the best player of the US open in the 2010's, because if you're not THERE you can't be the best. Consistency counts for something, and being absent twice just doesn't cut the mustard. Second, how does ANYONE figure that Stan is better than Novak on clay OR at RG?

Novak Djokovic has made the finals 3 times, and twice was stopped by the greatest clay court player ever. (I'm going to stop saying arguably, because, really?) Stan did beat him, but if you think he'd do it 6/10 times, you're deluding yourself.

The Stan fans are right about one thing for sure though. History only remembers the winner. Heck, in tennis' case, the general public only usually remembers Wimbledon and US Open winners. Fans who care enough to dissect the little things on forums will of course remember 3 Finals, though.

What's always bothered me when I sit down and look at greatness, is how much the public opinion of a career changes with a single win or loss. Say Fed never got his French. To a lot of people, he'd just be Sampras 2.0 (majors wise.)

I think it's a shame that people might look back on Novak as the guy who just couldn't finish at the French... when IMO he's the second best clay-courter in the game at the moment, (and 3rd to Fed when Fed was still a threat on clay.)

It really speaks volumes about how much Nadal's career has played spoiler to other people... and how great he is.. because if Nadal never exists... Fed likely has at LEAST 3 FO trophies... and Djokovic ends up with at least 2...

If Nadal never exists... the conversation isn't "who is the greatest of all time..." but rather... "is Federer literally the best player of all time on every single surface individually." I took the time... Fed's been stopped by Nadal FIVE times at RG... each time becoming the eventual champion.

Sorry to go off of so many tangents... discussing my thoughts sometimes leads to totally unrelated things that I just find fascinating.

You can go on as many tangents as you like. As long as Stan is a FO champion and Novak isn't, it's nothing short of bias and fanboyism to declare Djokovic better there. No one is trying to say that nothing Novak has done there mattered, but it has ALL amounted to less than him holding the trophy.

Isn't this greater / better business just a matter of semantics? No one can quantify this anyway.
Stan won RG, Nole didn't. He is the more successful player at RG. Once Nole wins a title he will be.
Just like Murray will always be a greater/better/more successful Wimbledon player than Roddick. In retrospect, no one cares.
I largely agree with your "tennis is not all slams" position. Thus I count Nole's clay masters as outweighing Stan's RG.
But I cannot agree that player A who has never won a tournament, is "better" at that tournament than player B who beat him to win it.

This exactly. What RF really needs to be laughing at is his armchair butthurt.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Nadal has two USO titles which naturally makes him most accomplished in this decade so far. Djokovic is second with one title and several finals. Decade still not over yet, so wait folks.

 

[Krish872007]

Votes are actually pretty close on this one. Should have made the poll public to see who voted Murray.

 

[tennis_commentator]

If it was public, Nadal would get virtually zilch.

 

[Krish872007]

If it was public, Nadal would get virtually zilch.

Could you explain that reasoning?

 

[tennis_commentator]

Could you explain that reasoning?

Because a lot of Nadal-haters know Nadal is the best US Open player of recent years, but they don't want anyone to know they voted for him.
Make it public and they won't vote for Nadal, same applies to any poll involving Nadal.

 

[gcollins]

You can go on as many tangents as you like. As long as Stan is a FO champion and Novak isn't, it's nothing short of bias and fanboyism to declare Djokovic better there. No one is trying to say that nothing Novak has done there mattered, but it has ALL amounted to less than him holding the trophy.



This exactly. What RF really needs to be laughing at is his armchair butthurt.

I would think someone with NADAL in his username would be hesitant to call anyone a fan-boy. Glass houses, no? I admit when I have biases, and although I'm partial to the excitement of the Big Four, what I'm saying about Djokovic being better at the French is NOT a bias-motivated statement. I just think that being stopped in the final or semi 3 times by the greatest court player ever means that he SHOULD have a French or two, and in any other era this would probably not even be a discussion (with the exception of Borg's.)

 

[RF-18]

You can go on as many tangents as you like. As long as Stan is a FO champion and Novak isn't, it's nothing short of bias and fanboyism to declare Djokovic better there. No one is trying to say that nothing Novak has done there mattered, but it has ALL amounted to less than him holding the trophy.



This exactly. What RF really needs to be laughing at is his armchair butthurt.

I was commenting on the things said in the first pages by cc0 & and her companions.

 

[Chanwan]

I would think someone with NADAL in his username would be hesitant to call anyone a fan-boy. Glass houses, no? I admit when I have biases, and although I'm partial to the excitement of the Big Four, what I'm saying about Djokovic being better at the French is NOT a bias-motivated statement. I just think that being stopped in the final or semi 3 times by the greatest court player ever means that he SHOULD have a French or two, and in any other era this would probably not even be a discussion (with the exception of Borg's.)

FYI, Rafa's actually 6-1 vs. Djoko at the FO, 2 finals, 3 semis and 2 QF's iirc.

 

[ZiggyStardust]

I would think someone with NADAL in his username would be hesitant to call anyone a fan-boy. Glass houses, no? I admit when I have biases, and although I'm partial to the excitement of the Big Four, what I'm saying about Djokovic being better at the French is NOT a bias-motivated statement. I just think that being stopped in the final or semi 3 times by the greatest court player ever means that he SHOULD have a French or two, and in any other era this would probably not even be a discussion (with the exception of Borg's.)

You're right, Djokovic got stopped most years by the best RG player ever. And in 2011 he was stopped by the second best RG player of the last 10 years. And in 2015 he was stopped by the third best.
See what I'm saying?

 

[gcollins]

You're right, Djokovic got stopped most years by the best RG player ever. And in 2011 he was stopped by the second best RG player of the last 10 years. And in 2015 he was stopped by the third best.
See what I'm saying?

I must politely disagree. I think he IS the third best. I understand the people who argue that winning the slam means everything... I just disagree with that train of thought in this case, and others.

I have recently changed my opinion regarding whether Stan can hang with the Big Four (on clay and slow HC) but that doesn't mean I think he's BETTER there. He had one big tournament, and while that matters, he doesn't have the overall resume there to be the "better" of the two.

Somewhat unrelatedly, my earlier comment on how much Nadal's career has shaped the rest of the tennis world got me to looking up the stats... If Nadal never existed... (don't give me the butterfly effect crap, I just wanted to do a simple projection)... Roger nets 4 French Opens, and possibly a 5th since he lost to Rafa in the Semi's in '05 there. I also played around with his other slam finals, and if you give him that french semi as a win, AND all the others... he ends up with a sickening 24 slams... which includes...

- 5 straight FO crowns....
- 7 straight Wimbledons... (which combine for 5 consecutive channel slams)
- 2 STRAIGHT calendar slams (06-07) as part of an ELEVEN slam streak... (French '05 - US '07)
- Which is followed up with a loss to Novak, then SIX more consecutive wins...
- What I personally think is the craziest hypothetical stat... 6 consecutive YEARS of 3 slams or more....

I know, I know, my fanboy is showing a bit... but realize that as crazy as it would be for Roger... it says THAT much about how important Rafa has been to the game... and also says that much about what his career has done to Novak's chances of an FO.

To get back to reality... I say again. In any other era with the exception of Borg's, Novak Djokovic would already be a French Open champion.

 

[bullfan]

I would think someone with NADAL in his username would be hesitant to call anyone a fan-boy. Glass houses, no? I admit when I have biases, and although I'm partial to the excitement of the Big Four, what I'm saying about Djokovic being better at the French is NOT a bias-motivated statement. I just think that being stopped in the final or semi 3 times by the greatest court player ever means that he SHOULD have a French or two, and in any other era this would probably not even be a discussion (with the exception of Borg's.)

Why are you talking about the French Open? This thread is about the USOpen.

 

[bullfan]

Some of the arguments being made here are just insane. First, Djokovic is the best player of the US open in the 2010's, because if you're not THERE you can't be the best. Consistency counts for something, and being absent twice just doesn't cut the mustard. Second, how does ANYONE figure that Stan is better than Novak on clay OR at RG?

Novak Djokovic has made the finals 3 times, and twice was stopped by the greatest clay court player ever. (I'm going to stop saying arguably, because, really?) Stan did beat him, but if you think he'd do it 6/10 times, you're deluding yourself.

The Stan fans are right about one thing for sure though. History only remembers the winner. Heck, in tennis' case, the general public only usually remembers Wimbledon and US Open winners. Fans who care enough to dissect the little things on forums will of course remember 3 Finals, though.

What's always bothered me when I sit down and look at greatness, is how much the public opinion of a career changes with a single win or loss. Say Fed never got his French. To a lot of people, he'd just be Sampras 2.0 (majors wise.)

I think it's a shame that people might look back on Novak as the guy who just couldn't finish at the French... when IMO he's the second best clay-courter in the game at the moment, (and 3rd to Fed when Fed was still a threat on clay.)

It really speaks volumes about how much Nadal's career has played spoiler to other people... and how great he is.. because if Nadal never exists... Fed likely has at LEAST 3 FO trophies... and Djokovic ends up with at least 2...

If Nadal never exists... the conversation isn't "who is the greatest of all time..." but rather... "is Federer literally the best player of all time on every single surface individually." I took the time... Fed's been stopped by Nadal FIVE times at RG... each time becoming the eventual champion.

Sorry to go off of so many tangents... discussing my thoughts sometimes leads to totally unrelated things that I just find fascinating.

There is another thread about What if Nadal wasnt born.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I would think someone with NADAL in his username would be hesitant to call anyone a fan-boy. Glass houses, no? I admit when I have biases, and although I'm partial to the excitement of the Big Four, what I'm saying about Djokovic being better at the French is NOT a bias-motivated statement. I just think that being stopped in the final or semi 3 times by the greatest court player ever means that he SHOULD have a French or two, and in any other era this would probably not even be a discussion (with the exception of Borg's.)

Nope, there's your problem already, Again, no one is even talking about Nadal right now.