USO greats by top ten and top five wins

[PeoplesChamp]

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."

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

Who thinks about this stuff so much that they actually LOSE a match? Someone terrified, that's who.

It wasn't tanking or avoiding Nadal and there's nothing that you can present that proves that. So what if he was thinking too much or made a mistake??? It's NOT avoidance and that's that, Bud.

 

[Winner]

US Open greats by wins in US Open finals

Federer, Sampras, Connors - 5
Nadal, McEnroe - 4

 

[PeoplesChamp]

Better root for Novak if you dont want Nadal to be the GOAT

At AO I will if all other options are spent.

And only if

 

[Deleted member 777746]

It wasn't tanking or avoiding Nadal and there's nothing that you can present that proves that. So what if he was thinking too much or made a mistake??? It's NOT avoidance and that's that, Bud.

Use your head. If that's what Feddy told us out loud, then imagine what the reality underneath was.

 

[PeoplesChamp]

Use your head. If that's what Feddy told us out loud, then imagine what the reality underneath was.

Later PETE

 

[Subway Tennis]

Nadal has worked his ass off for what he's acheived, I saw it from the beginning..... there are SOME days where I won't stand for the nonsense, this is one of them

Michael Nadal, still undefeated as of 27th December 2020

 

[killerboss]

"Top 10" Lmao, who cares? Nadal's about the big stage not generic consistency. Only stats you need to be concerned about is when Nadal faced an opponent on his level in finals (supposedly hard court GOAT according to a lot of people as well) it was 2-1 H2H and 4-3 in titles as of now.

Anyway, surprised to see Lendl and Connors leading the list. They should be considered USO GOATS

 

[tonylg]

Now I know why Sampras bombed two tiebreaks (his specialty) to lose to Korda at the US Open.

He wanted to avoid the matchup wiith Krajicek.

 

[Deleted member 777746]

Now I know why Sampras bombed two tiebreaks (his specialty) to lose to Korda at the US Open.

He wanted to avoid the matchup wiith Krajicek.

Sad troll attempt. Korda was doping at the time. Major scandal.
Plus Pete beat Kracijek in their only Open meeting in 2000 (when he was at a much more vulnerable stage of his career) from down a set and FOUR points to go down 2 sets to 0. Pete still found a way.

 

[tonylg]

Sad troll attempt. Korda was doping at the time. Major scandal.
Plus Pete beat Kracijek in their only Open meeting in 2000 (when he was at a much more vulnerable stage of his career) from down a set and FOUR points to go down 2 sets to 0. Pete still found a way.

We don't call them dopers any more, people who take PEDs are now called goats.

But it makes perfect sense, Pete's last match with Krajicek was when Richie pistol WHIPPED him at Wimbledon.

Despite the obvious ducking and weaving, Krajicek still finished 6-4 over Sampras.

Yes, I'm obviously joking. Except for the PEDs.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Michael Nadal, still undefeated as of 27th December 2020

 

[The Guru]

Yeah Nadal 07/08 sends Fed 14/15 away in 4 sets. 06 Nadal has a chance even.

This is true because of matchup advantage not because his level was as good as Djokovic's. 12 Djokovic beats 06 Nadal and could beat 07/08 Nadal. That too is because of matchup advantage. Best not to use hypothetical matches as a substitute for level.

 

[Backspin1183]

This is US Open top 5 of Open Era:

US Open	#
1.	Jimmy Connors	5
Pete Sampras
Roger Federer
4.	John McEnroe	4
Rafael Nadal

 

[aditya123]

Nadal has worked his ass off for what he's acheived, I saw it from the beginning..... there are SOME days where I won't stand for the nonsense, this is one of them

Especially when he missed the Uso 3 times due to injuries, pandemic and still has won it 4 times !! People don't have the heart to accept the positives here

 

[The Guru]

This is US Open top 5 of Open Era:

US Open	#
1.	Jimmy Connors	5
Pete Sampras
Roger Federer
4.	John McEnroe	4
Rafael Nadal

Djokovic and Lendl>Nadal at USO
Lendl made 8 straight finals and lost to the winner or won 11 straight years. Nadal was only relevant in what 6 USOs at most. That plus tougher competition makes up the gap of 1 title. Djokovic has already been discussed enough.

 

[Backspin1183]

Djokovic and Lendl>Nadal at USO
Lendl made 8 straight finals and lost to the winner or won 11 straight years. Nadal was only relevant in what 6 USOs at most. That plus tougher competition makes up the gap of 1 title. Djokovic has already been discussed enough.

Neither Lendl nor Djokovic has 4 titles at US Open which Nadal does. Nadal > Djokovic/Lendl.

Talk to me when they win as many titles as Nadal at the US Open.

 

[Backspin1183]

Especially when he missed the Uso 3 times due to injuries, pandemic and still has won it 4 times !! People don't have the heart to accept the positives here

He would have been a favourite for 2012 or 2014 editions.

 

[Backspin1183]

The pain of those 20 slams stupid pirate was supposed to be on crutches by 2013 at the latest

They will know Pain when Nadal is the sole Slam leader.

 

[The Guru]

Neither Lendl nor Djokovic has 4 titles at US Open which Nadal does. Nadal > Djokovic/Lendl.

Talk to me when they win as many titles as Nadal at the US Open.

Sure context doesn't matter neither do all other performance that don't result in titles. Brilliant reasoning.

 

[tonylg]

He would have been a favourite for 2012 or 2014 editions.

What makes you say that? Impressive losses to Rosol and teenage Kyrgios at Wimbledon, or some special Dr Fuentes rehab while serving yet another silent ban?

 

[aditya123]

He would have been a favourite for 2012 or 2014 editions.

Yes.

 

[The Blond Blur]

What makes you say that? Impressive losses to Rosol and teenage Kyrgios at Wimbledon, or some special Dr Fuentes rehab while serving yet another silent ban?

Yes, because grass is such a good indicator for a high bouncing HC It couldn't possibly be that he made the F the last 3 times he played there in 2010-2013.

Also the silent ban theories are as dumb as the people who perpetuate them.

 

[Lew II]

Nothing new. There's nothing that screams GOAT from Nadal outside clay.

3 players (Djokovic, Federer, Sampras) have a higher win percentage than Nadal at 4 of the 5 biggest events.

AO: Djokovic 90.4% > Federer 87.2% > Sampras 83.3% > Nadal 82.3%
WI: Sampras 90.0% > Federer 88.6% > Djokovic 87.8% > Nadal 81.5%
UO: Sampras 88.7% > Federer 86.4% > Djokovic 86.2% > Nadal 85.3%
YEC: Federer 77.6% > Djokovic 72.0% > Sampras 71.4% > Nadal 56.2%

 

[RS]

This is true because of matchup advantage not because his level was as good as Djokovic's. 12 Djokovic beats 06 Nadal and could beat 07/08 Nadal. That too is because of matchup advantage. Best not to use hypothetical matches as a substitute for level.

I was looking for a reaction but even though that is IMO.

I don’t think 2012 Djokovic was at that level personally. If it was 2015 Djokovic i could see it.

 

[Lew II]

Nadal's AO and USO numbers of match wins are very similar:

Total wins: 65-64
Wins over top five: 3-4
Wins over top ten: 7-7
Wins over top twenty: 17-10

 

[octogon]

Djokovic and Lendl>Nadal at USO
Lendl made 8 straight finals and lost to the winner or won 11 straight years. Nadal was only relevant in what 6 USOs at most. That plus tougher competition makes up the gap of 1 title. Djokovic has already been discussed enough.

This is beyond ridiculous. You tried to accuse me of trolling earlier, but this really feels like a class-A troll job. Because you clearly aren't dumb, yet you seem to be willing to pretend you are to sell a ridiculous scenario.

In the history of nothing, has greatness ever been decided by losing. Lendl losing 8 finals means he was an also-ran 8 times, and not good enough 8 times. It's a negative indiciment on his mentality as a champion to lose that many big matches, not a sign of your greatness at the event. A perennial choker at the event. Whatever you want to call it. He is not better than anybody who won more titles than him there, regardless of if he lost 50 finals. Same for Djokovic at the US Open. Goran Ivanesevic is not a better Wimbledon player than Andy Murray because he lost more finals. Ivanesic has 1 title, Murray has 2. It doesn't matter if Ivanesevic had to go through the likes of Pete Sampras. You have to play who is in front of you, and in the end, he only won 1 title.

I'm a Nadal fan, but I'm not going to pretend his losing 4 Australian Open finals (or whatever it is) makes him some Australian Open great. He is not better there than some player who made two Australian Open finals and won two. That guy will have pulled the trigger when it mattered and won more titles than Nadal in Australia, and deserves to be considered greater, no matter how many extra finals Nadal lost or how tough his opponents were. Winning titles, supersedes EVERYTHING.

All this other stuff (extra finals, difficulty of competition) only matters in the event of a tie on titles. But if you won less titles, you weren't as good at the event as the guy with more titles. It doesn't get more basic and straightforward than that in sport. Michael Jordan is seen as the GOAT of basketball because he made 6 NBA finals and won all 6. Lebron James has made nearly twice as many finals as Jordan (and won 4), but is seen as lagging behind Jordan in the GOAT debate, because he lost many of those finals he made. Jordan gets more respect for greatness than LeBron, because he was clutch and closed with fewer opportunities.

In sport, clutch mentality is a huge determining factor in greatness. "Closing" when it matters. Lendl was not "clutch" at the US Open (and Djokovic to a lesser extent), wheras Nadal was with fewer opportunities. To the winner goes the spoils. No one has ever said to the runner-up goes the spoils.

 

[RS]

Djokovic and Lendl>Nadal at USO
Lendl made 8 straight finals and lost to the winner or won 11 straight years. Nadal was only relevant in what 6 USOs at most. That plus tougher competition makes up the gap of 1 title. Djokovic has already been discussed enough.

Nah Djokovic and Nadal about even at the USO really.

But peak level wise Djokovic was mediocre ATG wise in all USO apart from 2011 and Fed in his 7th best USO and Fed was a point away from taking him out.

 

[tonylg]

Being clutch against Berretinni, Medvedev and Anderson is not the same as being clutch against Borg, McEnroe and Becker.

 

[RS]

Being clutch against Berretinni, Medvedev and Anderson is not the same as being clutch against Borg, McEnroe and Becker.

Game has improved since then.

 

[octogon]

Being clutch against Berretinni, Medvedev and Anderson is not the same as being clutch against Borg, McEnroe and Becker.

Medvedev is potentially going to be a multiple slam champion (he's as good a pick as any NextGen to do it, and I rate his odds better than Tsitsipas and Zverev). That was a great win against a huge young talent who on form and results was the best hardcourt player of 2019 (outside of Nadal himself).

Not to mention winning 2 US Open finals against the "Hardcourt GOAT" (Djokovic). Seems pretty clutch to me.

Kevin Anderson was a good enough Wimbledon final opponent for Djokovic in 2018, so I don't see the problem with him either.

 

[Backspin1183]

Game has improved since then.

That poster is in pain and not worth responding to.

 

[JaoSousa]

Did you remember to actually quantify the disparity between them on the surfaces? Of course not, because you are a dullard.

Oh man, I thought this was @tennis_pro for a second.

 

[BackhandDTL]

Oh man, I thought this was @tennis_pro for a second.

who is that lmao

everyone knows berretini is the mug of mugs .

 

[The Guru]

I was looking for a reaction but even though that is IMO.

I don’t think 2012 Djokovic was at that level personally. If it was 2015 Djokovic i could see it.

No shît

 

[The Guru]

This is beyond ridiculous. You tried to accuse me of trolling earlier, but this really feels like a class-A troll job. Because you clearly aren't dumb, yet you seem to be willing to pretend you are to sell a ridiculous scenario.

In the history of nothing, has greatness ever been decided by losing. Lendl losing 8 finals means he was an also-ran 8 times, and not good enough 8 times. It's a negative indiciment on his mentality as a champion to lose that many big matches, not a sign of your greatness at the event. A perennial choker at the event. Whatever you want to call it. He is not better than anybody who won more titles than him there, regardless of if he lost 50 finals. Same for Djokovic at the US Open. Goran Ivanesevic is not a better Wimbledon player than Andy Murray because he lost more finals. Ivanesic has 1 title, Murray has 2. It doesn't matter if Ivanesevic had to go through the likes of Pete Sampras. You have to play who is in front of you, and in the end, he only won 1 title.

I'm a Nadal fan, but I'm not going to pretend his losing 4 Australian Open finals (or whatever it is) makes him some Australian Open great. He is not better there than some player who made two Australian Open finals and won two. That guy will have pulled the trigger when it mattered and won more titles than Nadal in Australia, and deserves to be considered greater, no matter how many extra finals Nadal lost or how tough his opponents were. Winning titles, supersedes EVERYTHING.

All this other stuff (extra finals, difficulty of competition) only matters in the event of a tie on titles. But if you won less titles, you weren't as good at the event as the guy with more titles. It doesn't get more basic and straightforward than that in sport. Michael Jordan is seen as the GOAT of basketball because he made 6 NBA finals and won all 6. Lebron James has made nearly twice as many finals as Jordan (and won 4), but is seen as lagging behind Jordan in the GOAT debate, because he lost many of those finals he made. Jordan gets more respect for greatness than LeBron, because he was clutch and closed with fewer opportunities.

In sport, clutch mentality is a huge determining factor in greatness. "Closing" when it matters. Lendl was not "clutch" at the US Open (and Djokovic to a lesser extent), wheras Nadal was with fewer opportunities. To the winner goes the spoils. No one has ever said to the runner-up goes the spoils.

This is a style of arguing frowned on pretty much universally by any serious evaluators of greatness in any sport. Only taking into account performances that end in slam/championship victories is dumb. I don't really feel like I have to justify that claim as it should be obvious.