Nadal's place in the USO Open Era list

Where does The Nadal rank in the USO OE greats list?

  • Total voters
    101
AnOctorokForDinner

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
The thing is, Nadal does have 4 titles but lacks top level runs besides that (other than getting wrecked by Shoulderovic in 2011 F) and of course his two old age titles flattered to deceive thanks to mug opponents, so there's a very poignant argument that other 3-4-time titlists such as Lendl and McEnroe, and even Agassi the two-time champion who was stopped by peak competition on many occasions (Sampras x4, Lendl x2, Federer x2 - I had a thread about it a couple years ago), were in fact superior USO players. What say you?

Reminder: Federer, Sampras and Connors have 5 titles; Djokovic, Nadal and McEnroe 4; Lendl 3, Agassi 2 but both have many top losses.
 
If everyone was at peak and competed today I would put Nadal around #3, losing to Novak and Federer, but possibly winning against Pete, good chance winning against Agassi and certainly the others on the list.

We’ve seen many times where Nadal was counted out, only to will his way to a win. Being a “clay court specialist” he did the impossible on a regular basis.

I remember when Federer fans would complain about him saying he couldn’t do it and that he would burn out before Federer, but they were always wrong and not only did he outlast Federer he also procured more slams than him as well as the H2H.
 
Agree about Lendl. Definitely above Agassi though. Andre was a great HC player, but as you pointed out, he lost against peak competition virtually every time. Not so Nadal, beating prime Djoker twice is actually very impressive.
 
Top 5 at worst, top 4 at best.

1. H2H vs. Novak: 2-1 (and in those 3 matches they were at their peak, showing Nadal's peak at the USO is superior).

2. Percentage of finals won: 85% Nadal > 40% Novak (it shows Nadal possesses a superior clutch history at the event finals).

3. Number of finals: Novak 10 > 5.

4. Percentage of wins: Novak 87% > 85%.

For me, factors 1 and 2 are more relevant than 3 and 4. LeBron has more NBA finals than Jordan and yet everyone critizices him for being less clutch than Jordan and having a poorer ratio conversion, as Jordan is 6 out of 6 (100%) in NBA finals and LeBron is 4 out of 10 in NBA finals (40%). Just like 100% > 40%, 85% > 40%. And the overall win percentage is less relevant than the win percentage in finals because finals are the biggest matches. If we add the 2-1 H2H, that seals the deal.

Why Djokovic was at his absolute peak both at the USO 2010 and USO 2013:

USO 2010: Djokovic was already at his peak in the USO 2010. He had dramatically improved and beat Federer in the USO 2010 SF. In the USO 2009 SF, Djokovic lost in 3 sets to Federer. But in the USO 2010 SF Djokovic beat Federer with the same score than in the USO 2011 SF (5 sets), indicating that he already had peaked. It's not like Djokovic was non-peak the 31th of December of 2010 and suddenly became peak the 1st of January of 2011. He peaked in the last months of 2010, at the USO 2010.

USO 2013: Djokovic would have likely won 3 Slams plus the ATP finals without Nadal in 2013, and people would hyped 2013 as one of Djokovic's best years. Only because Djokovic lost to Nadal both the RG 2013 SF and the USO F, it doesn't follow that he was non-peak.
 
Last edited:
Difficult to say because Nadal skipped 2 editions in his prime hc years in 2012 and 2014 while also coming in rough form in 2009, so the sample size is limited.

I definitely have him above Djokovic and Agassi tough.
 
Peak wise (since this is an Octorok thread after all) we have to seriously respect 2010, we finally got mythical “Nadal with a serve” and he delivered. I would put that up there with anyone, honestly. He was also brutally unlucky with injury here, more than any other Slam, with winnable missed opportunities in 09, 12, 14, 18, 21. I think his style of tennis really meshed with the NY crowds and more active courts, and of course I’d bet on his physicality to withstand the brutal conditions.

I’ll go top 5. Obviously everyone beats him on longevity (which isn’t awful, two titles 9 years apart is quite good) but I’m weighting peak and missed opportunities here

Mac/Fed/PETE first tier

Yoko/Connahs/Nadal/Lendl second tier
 
I'm going to have to disagree. Nadal beat Novak in two finals. Prime Novak, something Fed never did. Of course he never played Fed there and he beat everybody else that was anybody there.

If anything if you wanted to play this game maybe we can argue Nadal 4 titles or greater than Federer 5 titles since beat mostly mugs and of course old man Agassi for his USO titles. Of course this is stupid anyway. The best 128 players are in a slam draw barring injury or something like that. If top seeds get upset thats on them. But it can't take away from the winner.
 
Last edited:
I can see a wide range of answers here. The level in 2010 is as good as anything the modern game ever produced as far as I'm concerned.

A real serve plus top Nadal movement and ball striking...virtually unbeatable for me (though I'd have loved to see Sampras play Nadal of course).
 
tennnisfanatic said:
I'm going to have to disagree. Nadal beat Novak in two finals. Prime Novak, something Fed never did. Of course he never played Fed there and he beat everybody else that was anybody there.

If anything if you wanted to play this game maybe we can argue Nadal 4 titles or greater than Federer 5 titles since beat mostly mugs and of course old man Agassi for his USO titles. Of course this is stupid anyway. The best 128 players are in a slam draw barring injury or something like that. If top seeds get upset thats on them. But it can't take away from the winner.
Click to expand...
If some are saying Lendl's 3 titles > Nadal 4 titles, yes you can play the same game and say Nadal's 4 titles > Federer's 5 titles.
 
a3xtil.jpg
 
Kralingen said:
Peak wise (since this is an Octorok thread after all) we have to seriously respect 2010, we finally got mythical “Nadal with a serve” and he delivered. I would put that up there with anyone, honestly. He was also brutally unlucky with injury here, more than any other Slam, with winnable missed opportunities in 09, 12, 14, 18, 21. I think his style of tennis really meshed with the NY crowds and more active courts, and of course I’d bet on his physicality to withstand the brutal conditions.

I’ll go top 5. Obviously everyone beats him on longevity (which isn’t awful, two titles 9 years apart is quite good) but I’m weighting peak and missed opportunities here

Mac/Fed/PETE first tier

Yoko/Connahs/Nadal/Lendl second tier
Click to expand...
Connors should be tier 1. He has 5 titles
 
Kralingen said:
Peak wise (since this is an Octorok thread after all) we have to seriously respect 2010, we finally got mythical “Nadal with a serve” and he delivered. I would put that up there with anyone, honestly. I think his style of tennis really meshed with the NY crowds and more active courts, and of course I’d bet on his physicality to withstand the brutal conditions.

I’ll go top 5. Obviously everyone beats him on longevity (which isn’t awful, two titles 9 years apart is quite good) but I’m weighting peak and missed opportunities here

Mac/Fed/PETE first tier

Yoko/Connahs/Nadal/Lendl second tier
Click to expand...
Exactly. He was electric AF there :D
 
Towny said:
1. Connors: Certainly not the highest peak, but man, that guy was so consistently good. 12 SFs in a row (a record at any slam), 5 titles, 7 finals. Made a SF at 39, which was utterly insane for players back then. Had to play McEnroe and Lendl a combined 9 times as well as Agassi, Edberg and Borg. He also had to deal with it being switched to clay for 3 years, meaning he's the only guy to have won the US Open on three surfaces.

2. Sampras: Nearly put him number 1. May well be the best ever in terms of level. Not quite Connors level of consistency but not far off. 5 titles with 8 finals. Winning titles in his teens, 20s and 30s. Dominant over the top competition, especially Agassi. Never lost a night match. The guy was a monster at the US Open

3. Federer: Slightly behind the other 2 IMO, largely because of his lack of mid to late career success. Somewhat surprising given how well he did at the Australian Open late into his career. But 5 titles in a row is just crazy dominance. May well never be repeated at the US Open. I think he may have the highest peak there too.

4. Djokovic: I think he's earned this spot now. 10 finals is crazy. The guy is crazy consistent here. Since 2007, he has only lost before the SF twice. One was of course the disqualification. He's had to face Federer and Nadal a combined 9 times too. I don't think he has the highest level here and he's never dominated the tournament like some of the others on this list. But I find it hard to put him any lower than 4th.

5. McEnroe: Pretty dominant here, getting three in a row, 4 titles overall. Very high level. Obviously had to deal with Connors and Lendl as well

6. Lendl: I really go back and fourth between Lendl and Nadal. The extra title for Nadal is a big deal. But Lendl had 8 finals in a row and like Mac also got three titles in a row. Plus he had to deal with Connors, McEnroe, Edberg, Agassi and Sampras. Nadal only really had Djokovic

7. Nadal has 4 titles here. Could have been more but he's unlucky with injuries. Still a great champion nonetheless with a very high level
Click to expand...

Quoting myself in a previous thread, I put him at 7. Connor/Sampras/Federer obviously top 3. Djokovic's ludicrous consistency and longevity puts him at 4th IMO. Mac is at 5 with both arguments of peak level plus the competition he faced. I have Lendl over Nadal just about but it's close.

In terms of peak level, we could make a case for Nadal being higher up but that's much more difficult to think to assess across different eras
 
Nadal has won 4 slams and that is equal to Novak who is better hard court player than nadal.
So credit must be given where it is due.
You have to give a ranking to nadal .
1 fedrer
2 sampras
3 novak
4 agassi
5 nadal.
 
1. Pete

2. Fed

3. Connors (difficult to rate because no one else on this list dealt with as varied conditions as he did)

4. McEnroe

5. Djokovic

6. Lendl

7. Nadal
 
Sampras/Fed/Connors are definitely ahead. Djokovic and Mac as well. With Lendl it gets arguable. Lendl has his 8 consecutive finals and of course a way tougher competition. Agassi I cannot really put ahead. 2 titles are too much to overcome. People are quick here to say Agassi had Fed and Pete to compete with, but then again his two draws where he won were not tough at all and he benefited from Pete being injured. Head-case Stich and Martin in the finals are pretty thankful opponents.
 
gamelovergold said:
Nadal has won 4 slams and that is equal to Novak who is better hard court player than nadal.
So credit must be given where it is due.
You have to give a ranking to nadal .
1 fedrer
2 sampras
3 novak
4 agassi
5 nadal.
Click to expand...
Agassi ahead of Nadal, Mac and Connors (!!) for you?
 
Djokovic and Federer have won double the amount of ranking points at USO in their career compared to Nadal. The Spaniard can barely touch their feet at this slam (or HC in general) and should hardly be mentioned in USO history.
 
Extremely positive listings of Nadal:
He's the Open Era US Open GOAT or at least top 3 (ignoring Nadal is 1 title behind Federer/Sampras/Connors and 2 titles behind being the sole US Open GOAT of the Open Era).

Balanced listings of Nadal:
He's anywhere between top 4 and top 6 (some may put him ahead of both McEnroe and Novak, some above one and behind the other, and some behind both).

Extremely negative listings of Nadal:
He's top 7 or top 8 (ignoring he's 1 title above Lendl and 2 titles above Agassi).
 
Sport said:
If some are saying Lendl's 3 titles > Nadal 4 titles, yes you can play the same game and say Nadal's 4 titles > Federer's 5 titles.
Click to expand...
Only if you ignore why it's being said about Lendl. Ivan is getting extra credit for being in 8 straight finals, and winning 3 in a row, which is insane. There's a legitimate argument that 3 straight titles and 5 extra finals is worth more than 4 scattered titles with 1 other final.

But there's literally no argument for Nadal's 4 over Fed's 5 when Nadal never defended the slam and played in fewer finals than Fed. So no, you can't play that game.
 
Sampras 1st
Federer 2nd
Connors 3rd
McEnroe 4th
Djokovic 5th
Nadal 6th
Lendl 7th
Agassi 8th
Edberg 9th
Rafter 10th


That's my list as it stands, but I think Sinner is very soon going to change this.
 
Nadal's peak in 2010 was legitimately high, arguably higher than any of Djokovic's runs so I can see him being 6th. Agassi shat the bed in a lot of big matches so Nadal probably has a better single run than him as well. I draw the line at Lendl though.
 
Even if this entire forum tells me Djokovic is above Nadal at US open I will never buy it.

Reaching finals to lose on big stage to more people wont make Novak better, Nadal has a 2-1 H2H over Novak and he already reached his 4th title at age 33 while Novak reached his 4th title at age 36.

Whatever stature Nadal has must be over Djokovic for sure or at best tied. You cannot put him below Novak.
 
Stature at the US open (open era)

01 Peter
02. Roger
03. Jimmy
04. John
05. Rafael
06. Novak
07. Ivan
08. Andre

So that is Nadal's spot, a respectable 5th position, not bad.


PS : Losing in finals so many times is a black mark on your resume if you are in GOAT discussions. You better lose early or you better win in the finals, there is no tolerance for mediocrity on the big stages when you are in your prime.
 
Certainly behind Pete, Jimbo, Rog. I would say behind Novak, and Lendl. Close with Andre and Mac.

His popularity there was crazy though, and no matter what anyone says, it is a popularity content.
 
6th.

I think all Nole finals puts him above despite 2>1 H2H. Its close though.

None of the post 2016 wins are very impressive, but they have 2 each.

JMacs dominance in a much shorter career and 3 titles in a row has to put him at 4th.
 
01. Nadal has 2-1 H2H in finals over Novak at the us open.
02. Nadal is more popular than Novak in Arthur Ashe Arena
03. Nadal has same number of titles as Novak and he won his last title at a younger age than Novak did

Yet TTW pundits are telling us that Novak is ahead because he lost more to Murray, Stan, Nishi, Nadal, Fed all in big stages ? So he is a better loser at big stages and so we must put him ahead ?

Really ? Is this your argument ?
 
Razer said:
01. Nadal has 2-1 H2H in finals over Novak at the us open.
02. Nadal is more popular than Novak in Arthur Ashe Arena
03. Nadal has same number of titles as Novak and he won his last title at a younger age than Novak did

Yet TTW pundits are telling us that Novak is ahead because he lost more to Murray, Stan, Nishi, Nadal, Fed all in big stages ? So he is a better loser at big stages and so we must put him ahead ?

Really ? Is this your argument ?
Click to expand...
The main argument for me Nadal has over Djokovic is beyond the h2h also the fact that he won the same amount of titles despite having far less chances due to injuries. Djokovic shat the bed far too many times in finals and lost to a bunch of players he had no business losing to.
 
Razer said:
01. Nadal has 2-1 H2H in finals over Novak at the us open.
02. Nadal is more popular than Novak in Arthur Ashe Arena
03. Nadal has same number of titles as Novak and he won his last title at a younger age than Novak did

Yet TTW pundits are telling us that Novak is ahead because he lost more to Murray, Stan, Nishi, Nadal, Fed all in big stages ? So he is a better loser at big stages and so we must put him ahead ?

Really ? Is this your argument ?
Click to expand...
5 extra finals is worth more than a 1 match lead in the H2H, yes.
 
Jonas78 said:
6th.

I think all Nole finals puts him above despite 2>1 H2H. Its close though.

None of the post 2016 wins are very impressive, but they have 2 each.

JMacs dominance in a much shorter career and 3 titles in a row has to put him at 4th.
Click to expand...

So we kind of have the same list then. Who is your top 3. And after Nadal in 6th, who have you got from 7th to 10th?
 
Hitman said:
So we kind of have the same list then. Who is your top 3. And after Nadal in 6th, who have you got from 7th to 10th?
Click to expand...
Yeah think i also share your top3. I can see why some people put Lendl at 5th, but i think 4>3 gives Djokodal the edge. Lendl had a shorter career and won 3 in a row vs a pretty tough field, so i wont say its plain wrong. I have to think about 8-10, it was so long ago lol.

Nole really should have snatched another one 2012-2014!
 
Razer said:
Stature at the US open (open era)

01 Peter
02. Roger
03. Jimmy
04. John
05. Rafael
06. Novak
07. Ivan
08. Andre

So that is Nadal's spot, a respectable 5th position, not bad.


PS : Losing in finals so many times is a black mark on your resume if you are in GOAT discussions. You better lose early or you better win in the finals, there is no tolerance for mediocrity on the big stages when you are in your prime.
Click to expand...
Exactly, Novak had to play 80,000 times and drag his ass to a 4th title in 2023 lol
 
Jonas78 said:
Yeah think i also share your top3. I can see why some people put Lendl at 5th, but i think 4>3 gives Djokodal the edge. Lendl had a shorter career and won 3 in a row vs a pretty tough field, so i wont say its plain wrong. I have to think about 8-10, it was so long ago lol.

Nole really should have snatched another one 2012-2014!
Click to expand...

Yes, I do agree with you here.

I think titles ultimately do trump everything, hence why I feel its Djokovic, then Nadal, and then Lendl. Ultimately their trophy cabinet looks better.

Lendl though was special at the USO, 8 finals in a row is truly remarkable.
 
Racquet_smash said:
I don't see how losing finals to Medvedev Wawrinka or Murray helps his case.

Besides Nadal had far less chances at the US Open than Djokovic did. Look at the amount of matched played.
Click to expand...
The best ability is availability. I'm not going to give bonus points to Nadal for what he may have accomplished with more bites at the apple. Consistency counts for something, and Djokovic has it. 10 straight years in the semifinals is legit. Losing in the finals is objectively better than not playing the tournament at all when we're talking about legacy rankings. This isn't a peak level debate.

Djokovic also ran into prime Fed 3 years in a row while Nadal was taking losses to Youzhny, Ferrer and Murray, so I don't really want to hear about how Novak lost too much to 2nd tier players.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lew II
Djokovic won by far the most finals over ATGs in the Open Era
2 3 4
Replies
162
Views
12K
FlyingSaucer
FlyingSaucer
Razer
  • Poll Poll
How many All Time Greats can say that they ruled their career span/era overall ?
Replies
44
Views
2K
Razer
Razer
tennisaddict
Top 7 in the Open Era History : Lendl / Edberg under rated ?
2
Replies
84
Views
7K
kOaMaster
kOaMaster
5555
Djokovic-Nadal is going to be the most played rivalry in the Open Era
Replies
10
Views
1K
ALCARAZWON
ALCARAZWON
Sport
Big 3 vs. Agassi at the USO. A statistical comparison
Replies
45
Views
2K
jl809
jl809
Back
Top