US Open 2019

Cork Boy 53

Nadal wins the final set 6-4 to win his 19th Grand Slam and is now just one behind Federer`s record total. He will surely go on to win a few more over the next few seasons.

dominatinMC

dominatinMC wrote: »

Has there ever been a player with a will to win like Nadal. What a man

makes Roy Keane seem like a push-over lol.

he should really give up on that barnet come-over tho - worst hair on tour by a mile.

EagererBeaver

Here comes the bit where the yanks make more of a fuss over the cheque than the trophy.

PicardWithHair

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

Nadal wins the final set 6-4 to win his 19th Grand Slam and is now just one behind Federer`s record total. He will surely go on to win a few more over the next few seasons.

At least 6 or 7 more at least.
Sad sad day for tennis.

dominatinMC

PicardWithHair wrote: »

At least 6 or 7 more at least.
Sad sad day for tennis.

:D Fed fans must be on suicide watch. I appreciate all three, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that Nadal and Djoker are superior players - and the stats back this up. I doubt Nadal will win 6/7 more, I'd say 3/4 at the very most

PicardWithHair

PicardWithHair wrote: »

At least 6 or 7 more at least.
Sad sad day for tennis.

Grow up. Let us marvel in the majesty of the big three while they're still on top.

yerwanthere123

Had a late one at work, didn't get in the door until 1am so delighted to see the match still in progress. It really, really felt like Medvedev had him early in that 5th set, if only he'd broken at 1-2 15-40 I think it could've been a different result. Unlike when Raonic, Berdych and Nishikori reached their slam finals, I genuinely think Daniil will actually go on to win at least a couple of slams in the future? This doesn't feel like his career peak at all.When the guard finally changes I think he'll be a part of it.

walshb

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

I think he'll be a part of it.

But will we be part of it? The fans...............

jr86

had a feeling medvedev might rattle him, but thought it'd be more 3 tight sets in a straight sets win, or 4 at most. I don't get the fatigue thing some people were citing pre-match, if a first slam final cannot get the adrenaline flowing into overdrive nothing ever will

have to say this has been some bonus for Nadal. I don't see him beating a fit and firing Novak at a non-clay slam again, so for him to retire early was like Christmas coming in september.

I imagine Federer will be number 3 on the list in a few years - the fans won't like that!

jr86

dominatinMC wrote: »

:D Fed fans must be on suicide watch. I appreciate all three, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that Nadal and Djoker are superior players - and the stats back this up. I doubt Nadal will win 6/7 more, I'd say 3/4 at the very most

Yeah, can't see him ever winning Wimbledon again, and Australia is unlikely - that said if Novak had retired there this year, Nadal would have won it with ease

I'd say he'll get 3 French and maybe one more hard court.

ND - if he's fit - will probably sweep up the next few AOs and Wimbledons (the scenes if he equalled Federer's Wimbledon haul ). The US hasn't always been the kindest to him - yet he still has 3 titles :pac:

hard to believe Nadal now has more US's than him

Chivito550

dominatinMC wrote: »

:D Fed fans must be on suicide watch. I appreciate all three, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that Nadal and Djoker are superior players - and the stats back this up. I doubt Nadal will win 6/7 more, I'd say 3/4 at the very most

Not so sure about that. In some aspects they are, in others they aren't. Nadal has won 5 hard court slams to Federer's 11. Away from clay it's 7-19. He's being beaten routinely by Federer away from clay in last few years.

Federer had a splendid Wimbledon which he threw away. He's still in great nick at 38.

An area where Federer falls down is mental strength relative to the other two. However, people forget that it's easier to make unforced errors when you are the aggressor. The other two lads are grinders who wear down their opponents.

You could argue that defensive style of play beats attacking attractive play in the long run in any sport (think Spurs v Ajax, Netherlands v West Germany in 74, Italy V Brazil in 82 and that's only looking at football).

Sport is about winning and Nadal and Djokovic have the most effective styles to win. Doesn't make it fun to watch though, and isn't necessarily good for the sport in the long run.

whiterebel

I don't see how there can be a GOAT unless ND wins 4/5 FOs to balance out his totals a bit. Rafa is definitely favoured by the slow courts, with now 16/19. It s a bit lopsided to be calling him the GOAT on that. Same with Fed and ND on their one FO apiece. When you look at Borgs achievements of going from the slowest surface to the fastest in weeks and winning 6 and 5 times, its a pity he didn't play for longer. Rod Laver must be a bit fed up too, not included in the debate much.

Chivito550

whiterebel wrote: »

I don't see how there can be a GOAT unless ND wins 4/5 FOs to balance out his totals a bit. Rafa is definitely favoured by the slow courts, with now 16/19. It s a bit lopsided to be calling him the GOAT on that. Same with Fed and ND on their one FO apiece. When you look at Borgs achievements of going from the slowest surface to the fastest in weeks and winning 6 and 5 times, its a pity he didn't play for longer. Rod Laver must be a bit fed up too, not included in the debate much.

Borg retired at 26 on 11 slams when the record was 12 slams. That in a nutshell describes how slam totals were not even a thing at the time. If it was a thing, he'd have kept playing to surpass Emerson's 12.

Theres no doubt the Big 3 (Nadal and Djokovic more so as they are 5-6 years younger) are benefitting from a couple of lost generations. Sampras had Federer and Hewitt come along to push him out. Federer had Nadal and Djokovic come along to push him out (to an extent). But where were the next batch of 22 year old to push Nadal and Djokovic out?

People seem to think Federer won slams in a weak era, but Federer had to beat lads in their 20s to win slams (Agassi aside). This current era is by far the weakest. The Big 3 are shadows of their former selves and yet are hoovering up slams easier than ever before.

Royale with Cheese

I'm a Fed fan but think the best player of the 3 is definitely Djokovic. Nadal's mental strength and how he fights to win is by far the best of the three, when he gets to 0-40 on his own serve I'd still back Nadal to get out of trouble more often than not. At 2-2 last night with the momentum with Medvedev I still fancied Nadal to get over the line, it's what he does. You can't help but have huge admiration for how he does that. I do think his record is a little skewed by one surface, as he's so far out ahead on clay his dominance there is unheard of.

Federer I agree is mentally weak, the polar opposite of Nadal in that regard. This year's Wimbledon final the prime example where he didn't get it done when it mattered most. That will haunt him for a long time. His has continually been knocked out of slams by lower ranked players in upsets where the others just don't. Maybe that's age, or maybe not. It looking very likely now he'll stay at 20 and the other two will pass him out.

Djokovic for me is the best all round player of the 3. Nadal breezed through the draw here but if he'd met a fully fit Djokovic in the final I think we all know how it would have ended.

Chivito550

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

I'm a Fed fan but think the best player of the 3 is definitely Djokovic. Nadal's mental strength and how he fights to win is by far the best of the three, when he gets to 0-40 on his own serve I'd still back Nadal to get out of trouble more often than not. At 2-2 last night with the momentum with Medvedev I still fancied Nadal to get over the line, it's what he does. You can't help but have huge admiration for how he does that. I do think his record is a little skewed by one surface, as he's so far out ahead on clay his dominance there is unheard of.

Federer I agree is mentally weak, the polar opposite of Nadal in that regard. This year's Wimbledon final the prime example where he didn't get it done when it mattered most. That will haunt him for a long time. His has continually been knocked out of slams by lower ranked players in upsets where the others just don't. Maybe that's age, or maybe not. It looking very likely now he'll stay at 20 and the other two will pass him out.

Djokovic for me is the best all round player of the 3. Nadal breezed through the draw here but if he'd met a fully fit Djokovic in the final I think we all know how it would have ended.

To be fair, Federer rarely lost to mugs at slams during his prime or indeed up to the last year. Nadal has actually lost to way more chumps than Federer has. For years the only ones who could beat Federer at slams were Nadal and Djokovic.

whiterebel

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

His has continually been knocked out of slams by lower ranked players in upsets where the others just don't. Maybe that's age, or maybe not.

Nadal - Steve Darcis, Dustin Brown, Kyrgios, Rosol, Soderling? ND - Cecchinato, Chung. I'm sure there's more, I can't think of them at the moment.

josip

Chivito550 wrote: »

Borg retired at 26 on 11 slams when the record was 12 slams. That in a nutshell describes how slam totals were not even a thing at the time. If it was a thing, he'd have kept playing to surpass Emerson's 12.

Borg retired at 26 because he lost the desire to play, not because he thought he had become the GOAT.

Even if Slams were the yardstick at the time, I don't think he would have continued playing.

whiterebel

josip wrote: »

Borg retired at 26 because he lost the desire to play, not because he thought he had become the GOAT.

Even if Slams were the yardstick at the time, I don't think he would have continued playing.

He lost the number 1 position, and said himself there was no point in being number 2. Strange thinking, instead on knuckling down and going again.

Chivito550

josip wrote: »

Borg retired at 26 because he lost the desire to play, not because he thought he had become the GOAT.

Even if Slams were the yardstick at the time, I don't think he would have continued playing.

You don't know that though. If everyone was obsessed with it then like they are now players might have played longer, travelled to Australia, not skipped RG for World Team Tennis, structured their years around slams etc.

Nobody makes any mention of world tour finals titles in goat reckonings, it's all about the GS total.

thesiegeof

How are we to measure who's the greatest? In golf, they go on majors, in snooker, they go on World Championships or at least the big 3, in tennis we have to go on grand slams. Fed is one ahead, he might have a chance to win one more I'd say. Nadal has 4 or 5 in him, with Djokovic it's hard to tell but you'd think he'd go close to Nadal if not past it. Anything can happen though, who knows what will happen in the next year never mind 4 or 5. Objectively though, if it goes as predicted, you have to put Nadal or Djokovic as number one and Federer as number 3. Taking all bias out of it and going by slams.

Chivito550

glasso wrote: »

Nobody makes any mention of world tour finals titles in goat reckonings, it's all about the GS total.

Yeh that's today's measurements. Pity previous generations weren't given this memo though. They treated the next tournament as the most important. Different attitudes.

walshb

The best way to decide the greatest is to say who is the greatest tennis talent of the three......

I know, talent can be a subjective term, but if you watch all three through the years, I think it's clearly to see that RF is D greatest talent to ever hold a tennis racket.

Trying to debate it as regards titles, slams, longevity, weeks at number 1, ATP 1000s, H2H records, tour finals etc, sees them all having a good shout..

Fed has a losing H2H vs both, but to me this is not all that important......break it down further and he has won more sets vs. Nole, for example...

thesiegeof

We have to rule out subjectivity, it's the only way. Some people prefer Nadal's style of play, some people Djokovic, some people Federer. The cold, hard facts are that Fed is number 1. He has the most grand slams. Nadal is hot on his heels though with Djokovic a bit back.

jr86

glasso wrote: »

Nobody makes any mention of world tour finals titles in goat reckonings, it's all about the GS total.

Oh believe me they'll count next June after Roland Garros in the eyes of many

Chivito550

thesiegeof wrote: »

We have to rule out subjectivity, it's the only way. Some people prefer Nadal's style of play, some people Djokovic, some people Federer. The cold, hard facts are that Fed is number 1. He has the most grand slams. Nadal is hot on his heels though with Djokovic a bit back.

The problem with that is that it means that only 8 weeks of the year are important in tennis. Is this the way people within the sport like their sport to be viewed.

You could argue a case for all 3. You could also argue a case for Sampras, Borg and Laver.

As a Fed fan I'd regard Djokovic as greater than Nadal and as somebody who I'd prefer to pass Roger if somebody was to. Rafa is a far more likeable person than Novak but his career is too skewed by clay. His US Open record is very impressive but overall 12 of 19 slams coming from the one slam highlights his inadequacies on other surfaces. Can such a player be considered the greatest of all time?

Rafa is greatest clay court player of all time, Roger the greatest on grass, and Djokovic the greatest on hard. I don't see the argument ever ending.

Would be nice for more diversity in the game now. It's becoming very boring now.

thesiegeof

Chivito550 wrote: »

The problem with that is that it means that only 8 weeks of the year are important in tennis. Is this the way people within the sport like their sport to be viewed.

You could argue a case for all 3. You could also argue a case for Sampras, Borg and Laver.

As a Fed fan I'd regard Djokovic as greater than Nadal and as somebody who I'd prefer to pass Roger if somebody was to. Rafa is a far more likeable person than Novak but his career is too skewed by clay. His US Open record is very impressive but overall 12 of 19 slams coming from the one slam highlights his inadequacies on other surfaces. Can such a player be considered the greatest of all time?

Rafa is greatest clay court player of all time, Roger the greatest on grass, and Djokovic the greatest on hard. I don't see the argument ever ending.

Would be nice for more diversity in the game now. It's becoming very boring now.

People could argue about Nadal on clay but then can you argue that Fed has Wimbledon? 8 for him is not far behind 12 on clay for Nadal. I think these 3 current greats have pushed each other to new heights. All 3 surpass everyone before. Borg didn't have a career ending injury, he chose to quit, he came back and was awful. I prefer just to call them the big 3 and enjoy watching them but if there's an argument over who's the greatest, the grand slam count is what matters.

lostcat

looks like i missed a belter after going to bed with Nadal 2-0 up

Nadal almost certain to ovetake Federer now, I have a feeling that Djokovic has a small bit too much ground to make up and might be caught by the maturaton of the 'next genners'in the next year or two before be passes 20.

EagererBeaver

Chivito550 wrote: »

Sport is about winning and Nadal and Djokovic have the most effective styles to win. Doesn't make it fun to watch though, and isn't necessarily good for the sport in the long run.

Last night's game was incredibly fun to watch with some exceptional skill on display.

Chivito550;111206261

His US Open record is very impressive but overall 12 of 19 slams coming from the one slam highlights his inadequacies on other surfaces. 

Really, you post some guff in your neverending quest to seek to undermine Nadal's career next to the great Roger, but this is just exceptions. Winning 7 GS on non-clay and making how many other finals (including some of the best matches ever, e.g. vs Djokovic Australia 2012) in some way highlights his inadequacies???

Chivito550

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Last night's game was incredibly fun to watch with some exceptional skill on display.

Yep, you can find exceptions to the rule. But in general the grinding style of wearing down opponents over long rallies is not fun to watch, the same way watching a soccer team put 9 men behind the ball or play a long ball game is not fun to watch.