US Open - 2014

[Cricketics]

Yuki Bhambri to play his qualifying game in about half an hour from now. Sanaa Singh plays in about 2 hours. Somdv already out. Yuki is back from injury.

[Cricketics]

Also young Sumit Nagal is one of the best players who has gotten into main draw if juniors event. I expect him to do well this year. So far everyone has talked good things about him. Brad Gilbert posted video of him recently describing him the future. Well I hope it is true.

[zep1706]

Also young Sumit Nagal is one of the best players who has gotten into main draw if juniors event. I expect him to do well this year. So far everyone has talked good things about him. Brad Gilbert posted video of him recently describing him the future. Well I hope it is true.

Yeah I have seen some of his videos. He seems to have a good game.

[kumar713]

Something for the Federer fans before the USO.

:two_thumbs_up:

[bones]

I think the Fed vs Nadal debate will go on for an eternity and more. I hate Nadal, there's nothing I would like to see more than this drug user being exposed and stripped of his titles, but let's assume he is clean. He has 14 Slams, Fed has 17, as far I'm concerned that is the biggest deciding factor. H2H and everything else comes if the GS count is tied. You might, might just have a case if Nadal wins 16 GS, cause it's so close. But weak era or not, Fed has 17. I do think Fed didn't have to work as hard for his first 10 slams as he had to for his last 7, mainly because of the standard of players, but that's not Fed's fault, he can only beat what is in front of him. Until Nadal has at the very least 16 slams, can Nadal fans please keep their rubbish arguments to themselves? Novak, in another era might have won 10-12 slams, but he isn't from those era, he is from this one and we just have to accept that as his fans. So can the Nadal fans please stop rambling on about insignificant H2H records and the weak era. Let him get to where Fed is in the GS count and then we can consider him for the GOAT. I will say this much, if Fed stays on 17 and Nadal gets to 17, provided Nadal is clean, which I don't think he is. Then Nadal would be the GOAT because I think the H2H, masters count, Olympic win, Davis Cup and the competition would simply be too heavy in his favour. But Nadal must first win more slams.

[bones]

That picture conveniently leaves out the French Open and as much as I hate Nadal, we can't ignore his unbelievable record there. It is Nadal's fortress and it's a fortress not like we've ever seen in this beautiful sport. If you're going to include stats for the GS, include them all please.

[Dil Dil India]

Firstly, I've not conveniently left out anything. Why are you assuming I made the pic? Secondly, French Open or not, it is quite extraordinary that Federer measures up to (and betters in the case of Wimbledon and US Open) the combined total of the current number 1 and number 2. Will not get into this whole doping business because I believe in everyone's innocence until proven otherwise. The cases of Aggassi, Maradonna, Lance Armstrong etc in recent years however has made me less skeptical than I once was though. Still, there's no reason to be suspecting Nadal of drug abuse. At best you could argue that the timing of his slams is rather convenient. Never missed a RG since his first slam win but he's missed all the other slams. Something tells me if this was RG instead of USO he'd have played. Also why I would consider such factors too when talking about HTH win % etc. If there's one thing I hold against Nadal it's his dubious medical timeouts though, definitely think he's used that to his advantage on more than one occasion but Djokovic has done it the most; but if the tennis authorities can't find a way around that or the ridiculous grunting and time wasting between points then it isn't their fault I suppose. Federer vs Nadal has been beaten to death. As it stands, you only have H2H (and the number of Masters if someone considers them to be really important). On every other metric, Federer wins hands down - distribution of slams, longevity, #1 ranking, WTFs - you name it. He has twice the number of slams Nadal does outside of their respective best surfaces and thrice as many hardcourt slams. This whole weak era argument is all hogwash from desperate Nadal fans. For one it isn't straight forward considering Roddick vs Djokovic H2H and Davdenko vs Nadal H2H and for another, unless you actually watched the matches you wouldn't know how good Aggassi was in that USO final game. It was windy as hell then and whenever I see people(mostly fans of a certain player) saying AA was over the hill and what not, it becomes so apparent that these people haven't watched matches at all. Moreover, you could make such arguments for everyone. Out of the 3, Federer is the only one that has won Australian Opens on both the Rebound Ace and Plexicushions. You might as well argue that Nadal wouldn't even have a career grand slam if it hadn't been for the change in surface there. Also, what about Nadal's claycourt slams? Use the weak opponent excuse there also. How many FO champions has he beaten there? That's 10 out of his 14 slams you could make such arguments for counting both AO and FO. Count how many AO, USO Champions and World #1s Federer has beaten at those slams. I won't even mention Wimbledon because he beat Pete ******* Sampras and this was before Sampras had turned 30 IIRC and he went on to win a GS after that. If anyone wants to split hairs to that extent they are welcome to and you could pick holes in Nadal's record to. For me if Nadal gets to 17 by winning 3 RGs, he is behind Federer. How does a player rate above another when he is still far behind in 3 out of 4 slams (but waaaay ahead in 1)? He needs to win 3 more slams at least, preferably all non clay. 18 would convince all but the most die-hard Roger fans though. The magic number is 18 for Nadal (provided Federer doesn't end up winning one more). Davis Cup is a team tournament, it is ridiculous to assert that it has a player has to have won it. What are Nadal's and Federer's individual records like at the DC? :winky: Might as well toss in Federer's double's Gold at Beijing in 2008 if we're counting DC. Nadal's singles gold is a talking point but Federer has a silver and the ATP gives less points to Olympic wins that it gives to Masters 1000 :haha: If everything else is equal then you could use it as a tiebreaker perhaps but of and in itself it doesn't mean too much. For Nadal to overtake Federer he has to win : 1) 18 slams 2) At least 3 of those 4 slams must be a combination of Wimby and the HC slams.

[Yoda-esque]

The biggest one is the year end cup with the top 8 players ,Federer has 6 of those which is amazing. All the greats have won multiple ones . Nadal is hopeless indoors and hasn't defended a single non clay tournament .he has glaring weaknesses in his resume.

[bones]

For Nadal to overtake Federer he has to win : 1) 18 slams 2) At least 3 of those 4 slams must be a combination of Wimby and the HC slams.

I'm not a Nadal fan, don't know why anyone would assume that. But the way I see it, if Nadal gets to 17 and Fed stays 17, then Nadal is the better player. To some the type of Slams you win count, for me, all slams are equal in weight. Wawrinka's AO is worth just as much as Djokovic's Wimbledon, so if Nadal wins 3/4 or however many French Opens, he's greater than Fed. Hopefully he never wins anything again, so we never have to call him the greatest.

[Dil Dil India]

I know you are not a Nadal fan(no Nadal fan would accuse Nadal of doping!!!:haha: :hysterical: ) but the point about Davis Cup and Olympic Gold medal needed to be replied to and the point about eras was a general one, not directed at you in particular although it did come up in your post. All slams are equal in weight, that is not in question (although there are people who have preferences there as well - some for instance rate Wimbledon more than any other slam, others something else etc). The thing is, if they are tied on 17 with Nadal winning 3 more RGs, then it will be : 1)US Open 5 - 2 2)Aus Open 4 - 1 3)Wimbledon 7 - 2 4)French Open - 1 - 12 I don't see how you could have Nadal based on that alone...unless you really value dominance in one place over a much more all round record. Even if Nadal wins 3 non clay slams and ties him, there will always be debate so long as it's tied. WTFs and other things will be weighed up against Masters etc. That is why I say 18 will seal the deal in my eyes. If he will only win RG from here then to be seen as the GOAT he will have to totally blow the GS record...maybe another 5-6 RGs for me(if he won't win any other slam from now).

[Raghav_12]

Record against Big 4 Nadal Played 95 W 61 Winning Percentage 64.2 % Djoko Played 97 W 48 Winning Percentage 49.5 % Federer Played 90 W 39 Winning Percentage 43.5 % Nadal Played 62 W 24 Winning Percentage 38.7% Dont think we need any more data points :D

[bones]

Record against Big 4 Nadal Played 95 W 61 Winning Percentage 64.2 % Djoko Played 97 W 48 Winning Percentage 49.5 % Federer Played 90 W 39 Winning Percentage 43.5 % Nadal Played 62 W 24 Winning Percentage 38.7% Dont think we need any more data points :D

Please come back with these stats when Nadal has 17 slams, in the mean time can you paste these stats to Zep in emails. Draw is out, Murray and Djokovic put in the same quarter, incredible really, there was an air of inevitability about it given they are probably the two players in the worst overall form right now from the top guys.

[bones]

I can't see how Fed can lose before the final unless Berdych meets him. Berdych has a tough draw so chances of him reaching the semis are slim. I love the post draw, pre-tournament discussions, all sorts of scenarios that make it great.

[Raghav_12]

Something for the Federer fans before the USO.

:hehe:

[zep1706]

The biggest one is the year end cup with the top 8 players ,Federer has 6 of those which is amazing. All the greats have won multiple ones .

How is WTF win any different from a masters win now a days? From semi and final it is exactly same as masters as both are best of 3. In the group stage you need to win 2 out of 3 matches, which is even easier than masters where every match is a knock out. The competition is tougher in the group stage than the first 4 matches of masters 1000 but you can win WTF by winning 4 out of 5 matches, whereas in Masters you need to win 6 knock out matches (5 for top 8), which balances it up. WTF lost its value ever since they made it best of 3. Now a days it is a glorified masters event on indoor hard court. Nadal's superior masters 1000+ Olympic gold nullifies that.

Nadal is hopeless indoors and hasn't defended a single non clay tournament .he has glaring weaknesses in his resume.

That is another useless statistics. A win loss record of 23-10 or Nadal's record of 10 years of slam+masters winning record weigh much more than that puny stats like that. Nadal has 1 indoor masters 1000, 1 final and 2 WTF finals, won't call it hopeless. At the end of the day, very few people would talk about these small stats. You can't own every single one of them. The slam count remains to be the most important stat.

[zep1706]

Something for the Federer fans before the USO.

This is a textbook example of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy) :cantstop:

[zep1706]

Federer got a cupcake draw, couldn't have asked for an easier draw than this. Everything is going his way, heavy favorite. Djokovic has easy early rounds but it gets tougher for him from QF. Even 4R could be tricky if it's against Isner.

[zep1706]

I know you are not a Nadal fan(no Nadal fan would accuse Nadal of doping!!!:haha: :hysterical: ) but the point about Davis Cup and Olympic Gold medal needed to be replied to and the point about eras was a general one, not directed at you in particular although it did come up in your post. All slams are equal in weight, that is not in question (although there are people who have preferences there as well - some for instance rate Wimbledon more than any other slam, others something else etc). The thing is, if they are tied on 17 with Nadal winning 3 more RGs, then it will be : 1)US Open 5 - 2 2)Aus Open 4 - 1 3)Wimbledon 7 - 2 4)French Open - 1 - 12 I don't see how you could have Nadal based on that alone...unless you really value dominance in one place over a much more all round record. Even if Nadal wins 3 non clay slams and ties him, there will always be debate so long as it's tied. WTFs and other things will be weighed up against Masters etc. That is why I say 18 will seal the deal in my eyes. If he will only win RG from here then to be seen as the GOAT he will have to totally blow the GS record...maybe another 5-6 RGs for me(if he won't win any other slam from now).

Nadal needs 2 non clay slams imo to be at the same level as Federer. There would be points against each other but overall both of them would be equal in my eyes. If he wins two more non clay slams then that would make 7 slams outside clay, As many as Sampras won outside grass. And if one of them is Aus Open, that would propel him to a much higher level with 2 career grand slams. That is why this year's Aus Open must have been so tough for him. No Djokovic, playing a player that he owned before yet could not get it done.

[Dil Dil India]

Zep, YEC is definitely more important than a Masters. Players' views, points available for the event etc all back that up. The B05 argument doesn't hold either because 3/6 of Federer's wins have been B05 matches IIRC. Of course all this only becomes a talking point if the number of slams are the same though. Don't think the point about Nadal never defending a title outside clay is irrelevant either. Sure no one will care about it if he ends up winning more slams but if everything else is equal it is definitely a talking point. Federer has defended titles everywhere - clay, grass, indoor hard, outdoor hard - you name it. As for the draw, guess Berdych is the one who can upset Federer. Mind you he got beaten by Robredo in 2013 so I wouldn't take anything for granted. Djoko's draw isn't bad. He'll probably be glad he got Raonich instead of Dmitrov on his side(although mr Sharapova on hard courts still has a lot to prove). Don't see Murray et al being big threats. Biggest threat to Djo before the final would be Stan. He'll wipe the floor with everyone else.

[zep1706]

Zep' date=' YEC is definitely more important than a Masters. Players' views, points available for the event etc all back that up. The B05 argument doesn't hold either because 3/6 of Federer's wins have been B05 matches IIRC. Of course all this only becomes a talking point if the number of slams are the same though.[/quote'] Of course it is an important tournament and Nadal would love to win it. But BO5 is a very valid argument. The moment they made it BO3, it lost a lot of relevance. I am not talking about Federer's wins but the tournament in general. Even the Olympic gold medal match is BO5. I was in favor of making masters 1000 finals BO3, as sometimes there are back to back masters and it takes a toll on the players but I don't see any reason why the last tournament of the year should not be BO5. Anyone who has been following tennis for a while knows that the YEC tournament was more important in the 80s and the 90s than it is now. It is still an important tournament but it has definitely lost some of its importance. That is the most irrelevant stat. Nobody except a few tennis nerds would care about it. Berdych himself won't reach semi IMO, most likely it would be Ferrer. He is not playing that well this year. With Tsonga, Wawrinka, Murray on Djokovic's side, Federer essentially has a bye till the final.