US Open - 2014

[Dil Dil India]

If you look at it in terms of points then it is next only to the slams. Whether it has lost importance relative to the 90s is not very relevant and arguable in itself. It is still the second most important tournament in tennis today after the slams. It is definitely a hole in your resume if you have not won it. 5 Masters series = 5000 points. Gold medal = 750 points. That is 5750 points. 6 WTFs = 9000 points. Silver medal = 450 points. Total 9450 points. Of course all this is only relevant if there is a tie in the single biggest prize in tennis. And look man, I don't think that stat is irrelevant. In the grand scheme of things sure it doesn't matter much but when you are comparing players and if you are using tie breakers then sure it is relevant IMO. Federer's draw looks alright on paper but I wouldn't say it is a bye till the final given his age. Every player does get some real easy draws(Nadal's at Wimby and US 10, US 13 come to mind; Berdych final, Youzhny and Gasquet semis in the other two followed by a tired Djokovic in the final who had draining 5 setters the semis on both occasions). Excited for this one. Hope it's really competitive.

[zep1706]

5 Masters series = 5000 points. Gold medal = 750 points. That is 5750 points. 6 WTFs = 9000 points. Silver medal = 450 points. Total 9450 points. Of course all this is only relevant if there is a tie in the single biggest prize in tennis.

Seriously? :haha: What's next? counting each and every point they earned? This is getting ridiculous lol. :cantstop: Just FYI you get 1500 points only if you win all the matches. Technically you can win only 3 out of 5 matches and still win the WTF title.

[Dil Dil India]

Seriously? :haha: What's next? counting each and every point they earned? This is getting ridiculous lol. :cantstop: Just FYI you get 1500 points only if you win all the matches. Technically you can win only 3 out of 5 matches and still win the WTF title.

Technically you can but when was the last time that happened? Someone winning 3/5 and winning the title? :--D 5 of Federer's 6 titles came undefeated anyway so okay -200 or whatever it is for a RR loss lol. The points available at an event seem to be a fair indicator of the value of the event and the most objective measure possible as there is clearly disagreement here with regards to its importance. Slams are the most important by far followed by daylight, then WTFs, then Masters 1000. Rankings, H2H, world records, consistency etc are other factors that can be thrown into the mix.

[Dil Dil India]

One reason why it would be great for Federer to win this is that he'll finally have the record for most slam wins at one event outright. Thus far he is tied for most titles in the open era in 3/4 slams :haha: long, long way to go to even think about it though. If he gets to the quarters with minimum fuss then anything can happen.

[Muloghonto]

I havnt been in the thick of tennis world in the last ten years, so i cant comment. But when i was in the thick of things, i can garantee you that players such as Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Ivanisevic all personally look at tennis success as Grand Slams + Masters Cup. The 'Big 5' as its colloqually known in tennis circles. I dont care hat its a best of 3, neither do the players. The fact that every single match is against a top 8 opponent and that winning it without a loss fetches almost as much points as winning a Grand Slam is what makes it almost as valuable as Grand Slams to players. For Nadal fans, the argument of head2head is silly. Even Nadal is on record for saying so.

[Raghav_12]

I havnt been in the thick of tennis world in the last ten years, so i cant comment. But when i was in the thick of things, i can garantee you that players such as Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Ivanisevic all personally look at tennis success as Grand Slams + Masters Cup. The 'Big 5' as its colloqually known in tennis circles. I dont care hat its a best of 3, neither do the players. The fact that every single match is against a top 8 opponent and that winning it without a loss fetches almost as much points as winning a Grand Slam is what makes it almost as valuable as Grand Slams to players. For Nadal fans, the argument of head2head is silly. Even Nadal is on record for saying so.

that's what makes Nadal greater :cantstop:

[Sachin=GOD]

Nadal fans are like Pakistani cricket fans when they talk to Indian fans - doesn't matter that India has won 2 WCs and 2 champions trophies and has defeated Pak 5 out of 5 times in WC matches, Pakistani fans are still stuck on that one statistic that shows that Pak has a better head to head against India in ODIs.

[zep1706]

Nadal fans are like Pakistani cricket fans when they talk to Indian fans - doesn't matter that India has won 2 WCs and 2 champions trophies and has defeated Pak 5 out of 5 times in WC matches' date=' Pakistani fans are still stuck on that one statistic that shows that Pak has a better head to head against India in ODIs.[/quote'] Tennis is not a team game. H2H and individual rivalries have always been a big part of it, be it McEnroe-Borg, Lendl-Mcenroe, Becker-Edberg, Connors-McEnroe or Agassi-Sampras. But none of those have been as one sided as Federer-Nadal. Federer has not beaten Nadal even once in GS since 2007. They have played thrice on hard courts, once on grass, twice on clay since then. Nadal is 6-0. That is definitely a negative for him no matter how much Fed fans choose to ignore it. Besides it's not like Nadal has not won grand slams (world cup equivalent in tennis). Right now Federer is ahead, if Nadal equals Federer and win a couple of more non clay slams, H2H would become very relevant. Nadal looked out of it against Novak in 2011-12. Everyone thought that he would never beat Novak again. Novak was dominating Nadal with his match-up advantages. But Nadal kept improving and focused on finding solutions and with each meeting he got better and better. Since then he is 4-0 against Novak in GS. Federer was not able to find a solution against Nadal. You can't ignore that. Of course all of that would only be relevant if Nadal equals or surpasses Federer in slam count, which is a big if at the moment. Federer is already 3 ahead and could be 4 after the US open. I don't see Nadal winning 4 more slams, but 3 might be possible. He is aiming for longevity. If he manages to play 4-5 more years, then 1-2 French Opens are possible and may be 1-2 more hard court slams somewhere. He of course squandered a huge opportunity in Australia this year, that would have put him right on track.

[Raghav_12]

Nadal fans are like Pakistani cricket fans when they talk to Indian fans - doesn't matter that India has won 2 WCs and 2 champions trophies and has defeated Pak 5 out of 5 times in WC matches' date= Pakistani fans are still stuck on that one statistic that shows that Pak has a better head to head against India in ODIs.

what is WC for Tennis? Grand Slams? It even gets worse for Federer there, H2H of 2-9.

[zep1706]

Djokovic has played 4 straight US open finals since 2010 and 5 in total, but he is 1-4. Federer also played 6 straight US open finals from 2004-09 and he is 5-1. Let's see the opponents each faced in the final. Federer 2004- Hewitt 2005- Agassi (35 years old) 2006- Roddick 2007- Djokovic(20 years old, first final) 2008- Murray (21 years old, first final) 2009- Del Potro (20 years old, first final) Djokovic 2007- Federer (prime) 2010- Nadal (prime) 2011- Nadal (prime) 2012- Murray (prime) 2013- Nadal (prime) Tells you everything that you need to know.

[adi B]

The most easiest draw fed could have hoped for but he can't take it for granted,last USo have been nothing less than nightmare for him. Tough draw for joker,we might yet again witness a Stan-nole classic

[adi B]

Djokovic has played 4 straight US open finals since 2010 and 5 in total, but he is 1-4. Federer also played 6 straight US open finals from 2004-09 and he is 5-1. Let's see the opponents each faced in the final. Federer 2004- Hewitt 2005- Agassi (35 years old) 2006- Roddick 2007- Djokovic(20 years old, first final) 2008- Murray (21 years old, first final) 2009- Del Potro (20 years old, first final) Djokovic 2007- Federer (prime) 2010- Nadal (prime) 2011- Nadal (prime) 2012- Murray (prime) 2013- Nadal (prime) Tells you everything that you need to know.

Not really.we can't term the Hewitt,Roddick and delpo as easy finals,no way even Djokovic was in red hot form in the American HC swing in 2007 after winning the Montreal. It's the current form of the player in the tournament that matters or in the last 2 months prior to the tournament began.delpo defeated Nadal in the semis,Hewitt and Roddick were in great form in 2004,2006 respectively and in their prime so can't count that out. I think only Murray 2008,agassi 2005 were somewhat cakewalk.

[zep1706]

Not really.we can't term the Hewitt,Roddick and delpo as easy finals,no way even Djokovic was in red hot form in the American HC swing in 2007 after winning the Montreal. It's the current form of the player in the tournament that matters or in the last 2 months prior to the tournament began.delpo defeated Nadal in the semis,Hewitt and Roddick were in great form in 2004,2006 respectively and in their prime so can't count that out. I think only Murray 2008,agassi 2005 were somewhat cakewalk.

There is no comparison man. If a prime Djokovic got to play against such opponents he would have also won all of those matches or at least 4 out of 5. Federer's competition outside clay was a joke. It was a field of mediocre players with one great player who took full advantage of it. 35+ Agassi gave Federer a better fight than those two.

[Dil Dil India]

Roddick and Hewitt are both US Open Champions and to include Del Potro as being some sort of weak opponent is being disingenuous. He was on fire that day (after having booted Nadal out previously) and in much better condition than Djokovic was in the 2010 and 2013 finals vs Nadal. Let's do the same for Nadal: 2010 and 2013 USO (the times he won) : 2013: 1)Ryan Harrison 2)Rogerio Dutra Silva 3)Ivan Dodig 4)Philip Kohlschreiber 5)Tommy Robredo 6)Gasquet 7)Djokovic 2010: 1)Teymuraz 2)Istomin 3)Simon 4)Lopez 5)Verdasco 6)Youzhny 7)Djokovic Basically a free ticket to the finals on both occasions and on both occasions he met a tired Djokovic who had draining 5 setters. 2010 Wimbledon Nadal 1)Nishikori 2)Haase 3)Petzschner 4)PH Mathieu 5)Soderling 6)Murray 7)Berdych :haha: What else outside clay? Mono Fed 2008 and the Aussie Open on Plexicushion (after unsurprisingly failing dismally to win it on the faster Rebound Ace) :--D And we all know how many French Open Champions he has beaten at the French Open so that's 9/14 titles there. Easy to pick holes innit.

[zep1706]

Roddick and Hewitt are both US Open Champions and to include Del Potro as being some sort of weak opponent is being disingenuous. He was on fire that day (after having booted Nadal out previously) and in much better condition than Djokovic was in the 2010 and 2013 finals vs Nadal. Let's do the same for Nadal: 2010 and 2013 USO (the times he won) : 2013: 1)Ryan Harrison 2)Rogerio Dutra Silva 3)Ivan Dodig 4)Philip Kohlschreiber 5)Tommy Robredo 6)Gasquet 7)Djokovic 2010: 1)Teymuraz 2)Istomin 3)Simon 4)Lopez 5)Verdasco 6)Youzhny 7)Djokovic Basically a free ticket to the finals on both occasions and on both occasions he met a tired Djokovic who had draining 5 setters. 2010 Wimbledon Nadal 1)Nishikori 2)Haase 3)Petzschner 4)PH Mathieu 5)Soderling 6)Murray 7)Berdych :haha: What else outside clay? Mono Fed 2008 and the Aussie Open on Plexicushion (after unsurprisingly failing dismally to win it on the faster Rebound Ace) :--D And we all know how many French Open Champions he has beaten at the French Open so that's 9/14 titles there. Easy to pick holes innit.

I have seen enough tennis to know how great Hewitt and Roddick were. Hewitt lost to Federer 6-0 7-6 6-0. Even 20 year old Djokovic and 35+ Agassi gave Federer a harder time. Hewitt went completely AWOL once the competition got tougher. Roddick won his only slam beating Juan Carlos Ferrero on a hard court. Neither of them would anything today. Anyone with a bit o honesty would agree that Djokovic (and Nadal) faced much tougher competition, mostly from each other and Federer (Murray if you stretch it). Anyone outside that group is pretty much irrelevant anyway as they lack consistency. There is a reason why Federer played 6 different opponents in 6 years ( 3 of them first timers and 1 35+ old) in that period. If you can't see the difference in quality that Djokovic faced in the US open finals and Federer faced, I can't convince you. Nadal beat Djokovic twice and Murray on grass once on the examples you cited, FAIL! I obviously don't expect a Federer fan to say that he agrees with me but there are many neutrals who do. Agassi has said this a few months ago.

[Dil Dil India]

And there are Aggasi, Murray and Djokovic in your Federer's list so using that logic your list is an EPIC fail as well. The problem is in Federer's case you want to dissect each and every thing - Aggasi - age. He didn't play badly that day. Irrelevant. Del Potro dumped Nadal out in the same tournament and was playing like a champion - still ignore that and use that for the ''6 different opponents in 6 years stat''. And that is the reason why Federer played 6 finals in 6 years - maybe he should have been dumped in the earlier rounds or taken an injury break and missed the whole thing. Honestly, what is with Nadal fans and this obsession with people in finals. How the heck is it Federer's fault that Del Potro made that final? What stopped the other great big 3 from making it? It isn't Roddick's fault in 2003 that Federer lost before the QF and Aggassi lost the SF and neither made the final. Again shows the problem of only looking at the person in the final. Anyone with a bit of honesty would know that Murray in slams in 2010 was nothing great and anyone with a modicum of objectivity and honesty would readily agree how much the draining 5 setters in the semis affected Djokovic on both occasions. in 2011 he was on God mode(beaten that year in slams only by the GOAT) and hence able to overcome fatigue. In 2010 and 2013 he was not. The fact is, you can make all sorts of excuses and arguments, but if you are one-eyed you will only see one side of the story. I have never yet seen any Nadal fan answer how many French Open slams he has beaten on clay because they will checkmate themselves by doing that. I have also NEVER seen any Nadal fan talking about Djokovic's illness in this year's RG final....list goes on and on and on. The irony of bigging up a till then slamless Murray in 2010 but making excuses for prime Roddick/prime Hewitt former USO Champions etc is there for all to see. No point arguing. I've been over this a million times with Nadal fans before elsewhere. Once everything gets squashed the H2H will come up again..as someone said, very like the Pakistani fans! The point is once you start picking holes you can do it to anyone - as I showed you could pretty much every Nadal slam can be picked on :haha: At the end of the day he has won more US Opens than Murray, Nadal and Djokovic put together and that is all that counts. End of. Here's hoping that the GOAT who has as many US Open slams as Nadal has non-clay slams does it again at 33.

[zep1706]

And there are Aggasi, Murray and Djokovic in your Federer's list so using that logic your list is an EPIC fail as well. The problem is in Federer's case you want to dissect each and every thing - Aggasi - age. He didn't play badly that day. Irrelevant. Del Potro dumped Nadal out in the same tournament and was playing like a champion - still ignore that and use that for the ''6 different opponents in 6 years stat''. And that is the reason why Federer played 6 finals in 6 years - maybe he should have been dumped in the earlier rounds or taken an injury break and missed the whole thing. Honestly, what is with Nadal fans and this obsession with people in finals. How the heck is it Federer's fault that Del Potro made that final? What stopped the other great big 3 from making it? Anyone with a bit of honesty would know that Murray in slams in 2010 was nothing great and anyone with a modicum of objectivity and honesty would readily agree how much the draining 5 setters in the semis affected Djokovic on both occasions. in 2011 he was on God mode(beaten that year in slams only by the GOAT) and hence able to overcome fatigue. In 2010 and 2013 he was not. The fact is, you can make all sorts of excuses and arguments, but if you are one-eyed you will only see one side of the story. I have never yet seen any Nadal fan answer how many French Open slams he has beaten on clay because they will checkmate themselves by doing that. I have also NEVER seen any Nadal fan talking about Djokovic's illness in this year's RG final....list goes on and on and on. The irony of bigging up a till then slamless Murray in 2010 but making excuses for prime Roddick/prime Hewitt etc is there for all to see. No point arguing. I've been over this a million times with Nadal fans before elsewhere. Once everything gets squashed the H2H will come up again..as someone said, very like the Pakistani fans! Here's hoping that the GOAT who has as many US Open slams as Nadal has non-clay slams does it again at 33.

I have no problem if you claim Federer as the GOAT. But my problem is when you try to pull down others. First you had a problem when I said Nadal was unlucky to miss the US open, then you posted a stupid picture somehow making Federer look better than Nadal + Djokovic and started finding holes in Nadal's resume. Two can play that game! :cantstop: Why don't you just focus on the US open instead?

[Dil Dil India]

I have no problem if you claim Federer as the GOAT. But my problem is when you try to pull down others. First you had a problem when I said Nadal was unlucky to miss the US open, then you posted a stupid picture somehow making Federer look better than Nadal + Djokovic and started finding holes in Nadal's resume. Two can play that game! :cantstop: Why don't you just focus on the US open instead?

I was only replying to Bones about what Nadal would need to do to be rated higher than Federer(for me). There are holes in everyone's resume - you can pick holes in everyone's record. AA is the most complete in terms of majori achievements - Career GS, WTF, Olympic Gold but I've lost respect for him ever since the drug thing came out (even if they didn't help or enhance his performance). I did not post a picture making Federer somehow look better than those two. Whatever was on it was true. I wouldn't have any issue with someone posting that Nadal has more FOs than Federer, Djokovic, Sampras and AA combined because it is true! Not like Nadal fans don't do it anyway. Raghav was upto his usual tricks in this very thread but you seem to miss posts from the Nadaltards generally. :--D I never had a "problem" when you said he was unlucky. I don't see what the issue is. I don't think such injuries are unlucky as such. If you see it differently that is your view and we agreed to disagree on that. Let's not make it sound like I picked on Nadal specifically. Would love to focus on the USO just like the rest of you. Excited for it.

[kumar713]

Murray Survived a scare.Easy for Djoker. Saw a little bit of 3rd set but he struggled at times. Nick Kyrgios through:two_thumbs_up:

[zep1706]

Murray Survived a scare.Easy for Djoker. Saw a little bit of 3rd set but he struggled at times. Nick Kyrgios through:two_thumbs_up:

Murray needs to work on his fitness and game in the off season. He is just not the same player this year. I would be surprised if he beats Tsonga to reach QF.