USO greats by top ten and top five wins

Justice Underworld said:
Top Ten
1. Sampras
2. Lendl
3. Federer > 16
4. McEnroe > 15
4. Connors > 15
6. Agassi > 13
7. Djokovic > 12
8. Borg > 8
8. Wawrinka > 8
10. Nadal > 7


Top Five
1. Sampras
1. Connors
1. Federer > 9
4. McEnroe > 8
4. Lendl > 8
6. Agassi > 7
7. Djokovic > 6
8. Borg > 5
8. Wawrinka > 5
10. Kodes | Tanner | Edberg | Nadal | Del Potro | Nishikori | > 4


There's something off with this picture. Can anybody spot what that is?
Click to expand...
Yeah, and I just fixed it for ya.
Welcome
 
USO greats are determined by number of titles.

Most US Open titles in the Open Era:

1-3. Connors/Sampras/Federer (5)
4-5. McEnroe/Nadal (4)
6-7. Lendl/Djokovic (3)
8-10. Rafter/Edberg/Agassi (2).

Nadal is tied with McEnroe as the fourth man with most US Open titles in the history of the Open Era. It logically follows that Nadal in an all-time great at the US Open.

Nadal has both more US Open titles than Djokovic and leads the H2H over him at the US Open. Therefore, it logically follows that Nadal is greater than Djokovic at the US Open (4 > 3). Only a very unobjective person would deny such a basic truth.
 
Sport said:
Only a very unobjective person would deny such a basic truth.
Click to expand...
That makes a generalization that proves that you yourself are not objective. Objectivity is rarely possible in such discussions, as you yourself have proven by using ambiguous words like "great", that are not clearly defined. It is a matter of opinion, not of fact, that someone is greater than someone else in a sport at a certain tournament, where conditions and equipment have changed over the last 50 years.
 
Sport said:
USO greats are determined by number of titles.

Most US Open titles in the Open Era:

1-3. Connors/Sampras/Federer (5)
4-5. McEnroe/Nadal (4)
6-7. Lendl/Djokovic (3)
8-10. Rafter/Edberg/Agassi (2).

Nadal is tied with McEnroe as the fourth man with most US Open titles in the history of the Open Era. It logically follows that Nadal in an all-time great at the US Open.

Nadal has both more US Open titles than Djokovic and leads the H2H over him at the US Open. Therefore, it logically follows that Nadal is greater than Djokovic at the US Open (4 > 3). Only a very unobjective person would deny such a basic truth.
Click to expand...


This is very obvious to anyone with common sense. You know Nadal's GOAT status is frightening the crap out of some when these garbage stats (top 5/top 10 wins) are propped up over actual SLAM titles to denote "greatness".

The desperation is real y'all. LOL!
 
JaoSousa said:
That makes a generalization that proves that you yourself are not objective. Objectivity is rarely possible in such discussions, as you yourself have proven by using ambiguous words like "great", that are not clearly defined. It is a matter of opinion, not of fact, that someone is greater than someone else in a sport at a certain tournament, where conditions and equipment have changed over the last 50 years.
Click to expand...
The fact that you are tying to dispute it makes yourself very unobjective. There is nothing ambiguous in 4 > 3. Basic mathematics, and mathematics is a purely objective domain.
 
octogon said:
This is very obvious to anyone with common sense. You know Nadal's GOAT status is frightening the crap out of some when these garbage stats (top 5/top 10 wins) are propped up over actual SLAM titles to denote "greatness".

The desperation is real y'all. LOL!
Click to expand...
Now they are trying to reverse mathematics and convince us that 3 > 4 haha.
 
Sport said:
The fact that you are tying to dispute it makes yourself very unobjective. There is nothing ambiguous in 4 > 3. Basic mathematics, and mathematics is a purely objective domain.
Click to expand...
okay, wawrinka=nadal at AO, basic math, haha
 
^ But only .000000001% of the world's population will ever be aware of this trivial thread, so its like it never happened.

Ranking is meaningless in the analysis of quality opponents, because injury-prone players have poor rankings and make comebacks and peak at the US Open sometimes.
2010 = Nadal beat eventual USO Champ Djokovic
2011 = Nadal beat eventual USO Champ Murray
2013 = Nadal beat USO Champ Djokovic
2017 = Nadal beat USO Champ Del Potro
2019 = Nadal beat USO Champ Cilic
 
Also Nadal's win over Medvedev at 2019 USO will probably be extremely valuable eventually, very likely to win a bunch of hardcourt slams.
 
Sport said:
The fact that you are tying to dispute it makes yourself very unobjective. There is nothing ambiguous in 4 > 3. Basic mathematics, and mathematics is a purely objective domain.
Click to expand...
There is a bit of an issue with your third sentence, but I won't get into that.

Mathematics is (for the most part) devoid of interpretation and emotions, but when one applies mathematics to something that is, by definition, a subjective matter, things can go wrong.

Lastly, I am not trying to refute your assertion that Nadal is the greater US Open player. I actually agree with this statement. I am just trying to show you that calling those who disagree with you on this matter unobjective is unwise.

Thanks, and have a good day.
 
Xemi666 said:
20>>>14 :cool:
Click to expand...
Different eras can't be compared in a straightforward numerical way. It's just about who was top in their era. Pete DOMINATED his, and so far looks like Rafa is at the top of his, tho Nole could change that.
 
Nadal fans are so triggered, lol. Just enjoy the fact that your man has 4 USOs.
 
BackhandDTL said:
And Nadal would have won 3 years straight if he didn’t have to deal with the Grass GOAT in his prime.

Be thankful that your guy has been able to defend his title against the best competition being a geriatric choker and a bunch of pigeons instead of prime Fed.
Click to expand...
I admire your fighting spirit.
 
Nole Slam said:
I admire your fighting spirit.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
And Lendl isn't a US Open GOAT, which shows how useless that stat actually is.

Skewed nonsense stats are fun though, having seen so many of them from Lew II. If you take the number of top 10 wins Federer had over players at Roland Garros, he's probably a greater French Open player than Bjorn Borg.LOL!
 
BackhandDTL said:
And Nadal would have won 3 years straight if he didn’t have to deal with the Grass GOAT in his prime.

Be thankful that your guy has been able to defend his title against the best competition being a geriatric choker and a bunch of pigeons instead of prime Fed.
Click to expand...
Yeah Nadal 07/08 sends Fed 14/15 away in 4 sets. 06 Nadal has a chance even.
 
BackhandDTL said:
And Nadal would have won 3 years straight if he didn’t have to deal with the Grass GOAT in his prime.
Click to expand...
okay, give those 3 titles to nadal = 5 wimby titles, then do the same operation with uso for djo (07+08) = 5 titles, 4+5=9<5+5=10/=djo is better at uso+wimby combined + better at AO i.e. he owns nadal at 3 slams ouf of 4..if we wanna interpret it in another way..i.e. ao-djo, roland garros-nadal, wimby-tie, uso-djo..still djo is ahead (2>1) :laughing:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fed should lose at least a point for dodging Nadal so many times. If he'd shown up for his duly appointed whipping in 2011 Nadal would have 1 Open and a case for Open co-GOAT alongside Pete and Jimbo. Let's not even mention the hilariously transparent straight sets loss to Robredo in 13, and head scratching 4 setter to Delpo in 2017. Has anyone tanked a match so clearly?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pete Prime said:
Fed should lose at least a point for dodging Nadal so many times. If he'd shown up for his duly appointed whipping in 2011 Nadal would have 1 Open and a case for Open co-GOAT alongside Pete and Jimbo. Let's not even mention the hilariously transparent straight sets loss to Robredo in 13, and head scratching 4 setter to Delpo in 2017. Has anyone tanked a match so clearly?
Click to expand...

Tomug-1-780x470.jpg
 
PeoplesChamp said:
Fed was entirely too salty (understandably)post match. Scratch that off your list. In 2010 Djokovic 2ad simply clutch.
Click to expand...
Nope. Fed was up 2 set to LOVE in 2011, then mysteriously blanked out and lost the next two sets. He was terrified of meeting his daddy in the finals. That's why he whiffed a 111 mph spinner to Nole's forehand on match point. The saltiness is just vanity and embarrassment.

As far as 2010 goes, the Godfather tells us:

"But I was a bit confused mentally, maybe, because we played the second session. … Maybe I just felt like I have to get out of this match as quick as I could to save energy to play Rafa the next day. I think it ended up hurting me losing the match at the end."
www.deseret.com

Roger Federer thinking of Novak Djokovic now, Rafael Nadal can wait

MELBOURNE, Australia — Roger Federer is reluctant for now to talk about possibly playing Rafael Nadal in the Australian Open final, and with good reason.
www.deseret.com www.deseret.com

Who thinks about this stuff so much that they actually LOSE a match? In the middle of the match...a semi-final match...at the US Open?

Someone terrified, that's who.

"Tremblerer"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The_Mental_Giant
Top 10 players by decade. 70s-2010s
2
Replies
52
Views
3K
The_Mental_Giant
The_Mental_Giant
ravenousRublev
Top 10 peak levels at each slam in a single year (open era GS only)
Replies
0
Views
544
ravenousRublev
ravenousRublev
R
Who are top 10 of the Open Era per surface
2
Replies
81
Views
11K
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight
Nadalgaenger
Top Ten players of the Open Era (Since Laver)
2 3 4
Replies
171
Views
12K
NatF
NatF
Lew II
Djokovic won by far the most finals over ATGs in the Open Era
2 3 4
Replies
162
Views
11K
FlyingSaucer
FlyingSaucer
Back
Top