Originally Posted by TennisFan3
And the top 10 level was higher during Fed's time? Did Fed beat the #2 player 6 times in a row and the #3 player 3 times out of 4?
I don't understand why people using this argument to support why the level of the 2011 top 10 is higher. That's the point of the lower top 10 level argument...the 2011 top 10 is not as strong, and that includes (surprise, surprise!) the #2 and #3.
Obviously they are no pushovers, and even though the former is slumping really hard and the latter has not been performing too well overall (also, Fed's now the #4 player, not #3), they are both are still pretty good this year...however, on the whole, the level of the top 10 this year is arguably not as high as that of the top 10 then.
Djokovic is also 2-1 against Murray, the actual #3, and one of his wins is against Mr. I-crumple-in-grand-slam finals (the other is a 3-setter on clay ending in a tie-break).
Also, you must account for the -entire- season. If Djokovic doesn't win a match from now until the end, clearly his season falls much, much shorter. The point of calling it the best "year" is that it's the entire year. If he completely crumbles in the end, it's a testament to his comparative lack of stamina. Fed in 2006 played and won a ridiculous number of matches. Djokovic didn't, yet he seems to be injured in his losses. Either he's finding excuses, or his body cannot hold up somehow (perhaps a mixture of both), and that's reason enough to consider Fed's 2006 greater.
Even with his record right now, I doubt his season's place in history as the best of all time. Get over yourselves. A total collapse is just an extrapolation of what is essentially happening now, if he indeed has such a bad injury. I hope he gets well and he isn't hurt too badly, but as for his season...I don't think it's the best.