Who would have been most happy with 2012

[Brett UK]

Out of the big 4 I would say

1= Federer - Won Wimbledon, regained no.1 ranking, matched Rafa for slam wins in the year. At his age, it is a terific result.

1= Murray - He broke his duck, and from the AO on he started to play Slam winning style. Olympics.

3 Djokovic - feels funny to place him 3rd when he finished ranked number 1, but at his current playing level, he should have taken more than 1 slam. This is not to knock him, more a show of respect for his ability to say that he would have wanted more and missed a chance.

4 Nadal - Injury is a major setback for the future. To win the same slams as Federer at their respective ages is a big win for Federer. If Nadal wins 1 more slam than Federer in a year it will not be enough to overtake his slam record so only matching him is a huge step backwards.

[SLD76]

Tie between Fed and Murray.

On second thought, Murray. Performed well in front of the home crows to win Gold. Won a major. Cant ask for more than that,

Meanwhile I know fed was probably disappointed to not defend basel and wtf. Also I know he wanted YE#1 to tie Pete.

[cknobman]

Murray for sure with Fed a close second.

[underground]

I'll pet Fed first. The reason being that he'll be more content with his achievements - as in he holds pretty much all the records now and another slam. Whereas Murray might want to seek more, and looking back could think that he could have got that Wimbledon title.

[FedererDropShot]

Federer. If he had won the gold medal, safe to say he'd be outright happiest.

Murray could have won a masters or two with dat US Open title + Gold Medal.

Djokovic. He could have won US but WTF was nearly as good.

Overall, I'd say Djokovic.

[Brett UK]

I feel that Djokovic could be quite pleased to have finished the year as number 1 but it's all about the slams really, and at his current level he should have taken at least 2 slams.

I think he could be quite optimistic about 2013 but look back on 2012 as a bit of an underperformance compared to what he might have expected from himself.

[Ess]

Originally Posted by cknobman

Murray for sure with Fed a close second.

Yeah, this for sure. I think Federer was very sad about the Olympic loss as well.

[veroniquem]

Djokovic by far. He won 2 of the 3 most important events of the first hard court seaon: AO and Miami. He made all 3 finals of the most important events on red clay (M-C, Rome and RG). His only relative "low" was grass with 2 semis "only". He made all summer hard court finals: Canada, Cincy and USO (winning the US open series bonus). He aced the Asian swing: won both Beijing and Shanghai and finished in style with the most important indoor title: WTF. Consistency, big wins and #1 ranking. Another great season for Djoko.

[Brett UK]

but if Nole was most consistent, most able player (which I agree with) is it not a bittersweet disappointment to only have banked 1 slam?

[veroniquem]

3 slam finals in a season a disappointment? Keep trolling.

[DropShotArtist]

Clearly Federer. You'd have to be a moron to think otherwise. The guy at 31 tied 3 other guys who are in their prime and in their mid 20s for number of slams won in 2012, and the most prestigious one at that.

[veroniquem]

Fed didn't win big until late. It is natural for a not precocious player (he was no Nadal, Wilander or Becker) to keep having success in late 20s and early 30s. He must have been disappointed not to tie Sampras's 6 year ends at # 1 given how close he was to do it. Also, his perfs in slams were not that good, apart from the one he won.

[Brett UK]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

3 slam finals in a season a disappointment? Keep trolling.

you're missing my point, especially if you're accusing me of trolling. Nole finished the year at number 1 and I give him credit for being the best player of 2012 and deserving his year end ranking.

It's a very good year but as far as slam wins go he might have liked more than 1 whereas Federer and Murray would be very happy to have got theirs.

Is it trolling to have a different opinion to yourself?

[DropShotArtist]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Fed didn't win big until late. It is natural for a not precocious player (he was no Nadal, Wilander or Becker) to keep having success in late 20s and early 30s. He must have been disappointed not to tie Sampras's 6 year ends at # 1 given how close he was to do it. Also, his perfs in slams were not that good, apart from the one he won.

That's completely ridiculous. The biology of the body knows nothing about winning 'late'.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Brett UK

you're missing my point, especially if you're accusing me of trolling. Nole finished the year at number 1 and I give him credit for being the best player of 2012 and deserving his year end ranking.

It's a very good year but as far as slam wins go he might have liked more than 1 whereas Federer and Murray would be very happy to have got theirs.

Is it trolling to have a different opinion to yourself?

I was just wondering if you were serious, sorry. I think if Djoko hadn't won WTF and recovered #1 by year end, you would have a point. After all, Djoko WON 3 out of 4 slams in 2011. Who wouldn't want to repeat such a perf? The reason why I don't think 2012 felt like a disappointment is because in 2011, no matter how brilliant his season was, he couldn't go all the way. After USO, he was done and dusted. In 2012, he got 2 slam finals instead of the titles (not a massive downfall either) but he sustained a high level until the very end of the year and was able to be a dominant force throughout. That's important. The other reason to be satisfied is that despite his winning 4 less titles in 2012 that 2011, he still outperformed every other top player (including Fed, sorry). Hard to feel disappointed about being the best (+ #1 + player of the year)! And the last reason why I think he should be satisfied is: first RG final, that was the only slam where he hadn't made the final yet, so it was a significant step in the right direction.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

That's completely ridiculous. The biology of the body knows nothing about winning 'late'.

What?? So suddenly late bloomers and early bloomers don't exist? How convenient. Fed fans want to have it both ways it seems: excuse his lack of success at 18-20 with the late bloomer claim and then tout the 29-31 successes as a miracle. The way I see it, you can't have it both ways.

[veroniquem]

I'd like to add that as far as Murray is concerned, I fail to see how he could be happy with his 2012 overall, sorry. He only won 3 titles, one of which was a 250. That's not what he should aim for in his prime, even if winning his first slam was big. His overall results not only didn't compare to Djoko's, but they didn't compare either with Fed's or Nadal's (despite Nadal missing half the season). If Murray is serious about being a contender for #1, he's gonna have to do much, much better than that. Much.

[Brett UK]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

I'd like to add that as far as Murray is concerned, I fail to see how he could be happy with his 2012 overall, sorry. He only won 3 titles, one of which was a 250. That's not what he should aim for in his prime, even if winning his first slam was big. His overall results not only didn't compare to Djoko's, but they didn't compare either with Fed's or Nadal's (despite Nadal missing half the season). If Murray is serious about being a contender for #1, he's gonna have to do much, much better than that. Much.

Murray does have to improve his consistency a lot but he must have been wondering if he would ever win a slam so it must be a huge breakthrough and relief to have achieved this. This was my point from the start really..

..Murray winning 1 slam is an outperformance compared to expectations, Federer at almost 31 winning Wimbledon is an outperformance, Nole winning 1 slam is not an outperformance.

but that is just my honest opinion. Sorry that my different opinion to yours = trolling.

[pringles]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Djokovic by far. He won 2 of the 3 most important events of the first hard court seaon: AO and Miami. He made all 3 finals of the most important events on red clay (M-C, Rome and RG). His only relative "low" was grass with 2 semis "only". He made all summer hard court finals: Canada, Cincy and USO (winning the US open series bonus). He aced the Asian swing: won both Beijing and Shanghai and finished in style with the most important indoor title: WTF. Consistency, big wins and #1 ranking. Another great season for Djoko.

Relatively speaking - it's like if you asked a non-top 4 player which season would he take - I'm sure the majority would take Djokovic's 2012. I'm sure he had higher expectations from himself, though.

I'd rate it as:
1) Murray - won his first long awaited major. Nuff said.
2) Federer - at 31 back to no 1, won Wimbledon, 6 titles and finished 2nd
3) Djokovic - not on par with 2011, still a good year
4) Nadal - an OK year for him despite missing the last 5 months of the season

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Brett UK

Murray does have to improve his consistency a lot but he must have been wondering if he would ever win a slam so it must be a huge breakthrough and relief to have achieved this. This was my point from the start really..

..Murray winning 1 slam is an outperformance compared to expectations, Federer at almost 31 winning Wimbledon is an outperformance, Nole winning 1 slam is not an outperformance.

but that is just my honest opinion. Sorry that my different opinion to yours = trolling.

I personally don't think that Murray winning 1 slam is an outperf. It is something that people have expected him to do for several years and were surprised he wasn't doing. I think a guy like him could win at least 2 to 4 total to be honest if he lived up to his potential. Fed is the grass GOAT and even though it was not at all obvious he could pull off the win and 2012 was a stellar season for him, it was definitely less unexpected to see him win a slam on grass than let's say RG or a slam on hard (tougher competition on that surface). Everyone always suspected that W was his best shot (not many grass court specialists and with Rafa out of the way...). Still a great achievement of course. I guess what I do not appreciate (and my reason for the trolling accusation) is your attempt to use Fed and Murray's (very real) achievements to put down/ demean Djoko's ones even though by any standard, Djoko's ones were superior to both and consecutive year ends at #1 is rare enough not to be treated with contempt or cynicsm. It is radically untrue that people expected Djoko to maintain his 2011 level in 2012. Most people were eager to believe that his 2011 was a fluke and were waiting for him to fall flat on his face in 2012 with GLEE. Well, not quite.
ETA: the only top player who has ground for being disappointed of his 2012 is Nadal and that's because on top of missing the Olympics, he couldn't defend his chances for a whole 6 months.