US Open 2019

MisterAnarchy · 09-09-2019 1:47am

Nadal holding at 1-1 in the set was critical.
Medvedev had all the momentum but Nadal managed to battle through that game.

Medvedev tired after that ,doesnt look 100% and making too many unforced errors.
He is young ,hard to beat Nadal in a final first time out ,even harder when coming from 2 sets down.

EagererBeaver · 09-09-2019 1:50am

I am not sure what noise Mark Petchey just made on commentary.

09-09-2019 1:51am

Medved has just lost much of his tennis ability in the last few games completely - must be wreckedness

hitting some ridiculously bad shots borne of tiredness

somehow he has a break point tho...

come on tf

BorneTobyWilde · 09-09-2019 1:55am

Was Nadal suppose to serve in all that noise, he was waiting for crowd to settle.

EagererBeaver · 09-09-2019 1:55am

I'll readily admit that Rafa takes the piss with the time and the towels and the bottles and the bouncing and the picking his hole but that last time violation was bull****. The crowd were roaring.

09-09-2019 2:01am

some pair of balls on medved to face down those match points like that

I think that it's a serious case of Russian stoicism more than anything.

EagererBeaver · 09-09-2019 2:09am

Phew!

dominatinMC · 09-09-2019 2:10am

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

09-09-2019 2:11am

ah fook.

Medved is going to win a few slams at least based on that display if he can be consistent.

Such an awkward style of shot to play against and seems to have it upstairs.

BorneTobyWilde · 09-09-2019 2:12am

One of his toughest matches, the Russian just would not quit

Cork Boy 53 · 09-09-2019 2:12am

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.

09-09-2019 2:13am

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 · 09-09-2019 2:19am

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

PicardWithHair · 09-09-2019 2:20am

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 · 09-09-2019 2:23am

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

09-09-2019 2:32am

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 · 09-09-2019 2:52am

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 · 09-09-2019 9:21am

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

I think he'll be a part of it.

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

jr86 · 09-09-2019 9:37am

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 · 09-09-2019 9:42am

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 · 09-09-2019 9:52am

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 · 09-09-2019 10:19am

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 · 09-09-2019 10:57am

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 · 09-09-2019 10:58am

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 · 09-09-2019 11:02am

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 · 09-09-2019 11:13am

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 · 09-09-2019 11:23am

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 · 09-09-2019 11:26am

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 · 09-09-2019 11:27am

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.

09-09-2019 11:56am

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

thesiegeof · 09-09-2019 11:57am

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 · 09-09-2019 12:00pm

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 · 09-09-2019 12:01pm

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 · 09-09-2019 12:06pm

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 · 09-09-2019 12:15pm

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 · 09-09-2019 12:18pm

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 · 09-09-2019 12:23pm

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 · 09-09-2019 12:28pm

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 · 09-09-2019 12:34pm

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 · 09-09-2019 12:43pm

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.

EagererBeaver · 09-09-2019 12:44pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

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.

Absolute gibberish.

09-09-2019 12:45pm

jr86 wrote: »

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

Indeed. World tour finals titles and other stats seem to be gaining preemptive significance with fed supporters at the moment!

Floppybits · 09-09-2019 12:54pm

glasso wrote: »

Indeed. World tour finals titles and other stats seem to be gaining preemptive significance with fed supporters at the moment!

I don't think you can count the World tour finals in this GOAT conversation. Half the time the players can't be arsed compete and usually turn up and go through the motions. Sure Dimitrov won it in 2017 and Zverev last year and I remember another year Andy Murray getting called at home to see if he would come and play an exhibition match because one of the players in the final pulled out. The world tour finals is just an end of season money grab, I really think the players could take it or leave it.

dominatinMC · 09-09-2019 12:57pm

The shifting of the goalposts on here, and other forums, is hilarious. For years, and make no doubt about it, the GS tally was all that ever mattered in the GOAT debate. Now, suddenly, there are other factors, such as Word Tour Finals, Weeks at No.1, etc.

Then there is the whole clay argument to undermine Nadals achievements. The last time I looked, clay courts resembled any other kind of tennis court, with a net in the middle over which a fuzzy yellow ball is supposed to go. Just because the characteristics differ doesn't make it any less a part of the sport. The fact that one man has dominated on this particular kind of tennis court is more of a testament to his greatness, rather than some kind of slight on his career.

I admire all 3 but the bitterness of Feds legion of fans actually turns me off the player at times. In my mind he is the most aesthetically pleasing player ever, but not sure about the greatest - still to be decided :pac:

jr86 · 09-09-2019 12:58pm

Floppybits wrote: »

I don't think you can count the World tour finals in this GOAT conversation. Half the time the players can't be arsed compete and usually turn up and go through the motions. Sure Dimitrov won it in 2017 and Zverev last year and I remember another year Andy Murray getting called at home to see if he would come and play an exhibition match because one of the players in the final pulled out. The world tour finals is just an end of season money grab, I really think the players could take it or leave it.

Couldn't agree more

The Olympic Gold is probably strictly speaking the "5th major"

But even that has a caveat. Its on at an awful time in the year (interrupting the North American HC swing) and only every 4 years. Many of the players will not even turn up, and while I'm sure they love representing their country, a lot that do play will have an obvious eye on the US Open

09-09-2019 1:06pm

jr86 wrote: »

Couldn't agree more

The Olympic Gold is probably strictly speaking the "5th major"

But even that has a caveat. Its on at an awful time in the year (interrupting the North American HC swing) and only every 4 years. Many of the players will not even turn up, and while I'm sure they love representing their country, a lot that do play will have an obvious eye on the US Open

Can't really be talked about in the same breath as a GS until you get the very best turning up for it.

Chivito550 · 09-09-2019 1:06pm

jr86 wrote: »

Couldn't agree more

The Olympic Gold is probably strictly speaking the "5th major"

But even that has a caveat. Its on at an awful time in the year (interrupting the North American HC swing) and only every 4 years. Many of the players will not even turn up, and while I'm sure they love representing their country, a lot that do play will have an obvious eye on the US Open

Olympics has 750 points. Masters 1000 have 1000, and World Tour Finals has 1500, so what you say about Olympics being 5th major isn't true.

I do like the Olympics in tennis as its the only real time you'll see the big guns play doubles. In the Olympics a gold in singles is the same as a gold in doubles which is why you often see players double up or in some cases play mixed doubles too.

BorneTobyWilde · 09-09-2019 1:17pm

lostcat wrote: »

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.

It was epically intense and on a knifes edge. Nadal had to fight for every crumb. The Russian was like a machine, it was in last set when Nadal hit a golden patch, won 15 of 19 points, down to his brilliance and the Russian making faults, it's where the tide turned. But even with two breaks Nadal could not serve out for the win, he was broken back and struggled again on his next chance. Took 3 match points to get over the line.

jr86 · 09-09-2019 1:34pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

Olympics has 750 points. Masters 1000 have 1000, and World Tour Finals has 1500, so what you say about Olympics being 5th major isn't true.
.

I - personally - don't consider anything a 5th major. Majors are just so far ahead in terms of prestige than anything else.

Whatever about the points on offer - I'd imagine every single player on tour though would take an olympic gold before a masters title. The ones that skip the Olympics know they've little chance of winning anyway. the big guns will all be gung-ho

Floppybits · 09-09-2019 3:26pm

jr86 wrote: »

I - personally - don't consider anything a 5th major. Majors are just so far ahead in terms of prestige than anything else.

Whatever about the points on offer - I'd imagine every single player on tour though would take an olympic gold before a masters title. The ones that skip the Olympics know they've little chance of winning anyway. the big guns will all be gung-ho

I would agree, there is more prestige having an Olympic Gold Medal than a masters title. The fact that it is only every 4 years adds to the prestige. Look a Federer, one of the greatest of all time and will probably not win an Olympic Gold medal in singles. I wonder if asked would he swap some ATP masters Titles for that Gold medal?

US Open 2019

Comments